As I explained before, all too often the topic of domestic violence is raised not in a good faith effort to protect against real abuse, but as a club against husbands to bring them into submission. The concept of a husband as head of household is unbearable to feminists, and framing the ordinary husband as a rabid potential abuser who must be held in check (lest he terrorize his innocent and defenseless wife) is the feminist’s most effective tool in destroying the concept of headship. This is as true for Christian feminists as it is for their secular counterparts.

Joel and Kathy Davisson are so over the top and farcical in applying this method that they come across as more of a caricature of it than serious practitioners. But nevertheless they are serious, and if you want to understand the mechanics of how feminists go to war with biblical headship, study the Davissons first. Once you see the mechanics of the tactic used so brazenly and clumsily by the Davissons, the more subtle and sophisticated use of the tactic by more mainstream Christian feminists becomes transparent as well.

No matter who is using it, the key to the effectiveness of this tactic is in putting the defenders of biblical headship in a position of trying to explain why they aren’t either abusers themselves or supporting abuse. This move clears the table of the biblical relationship between husbands and wives, and dares those who aren’t at war with the Bible to try to plead for space to allow even a little of the biblical framing of marriage back in. The begging and pleading is doomed to fail, as the feminists have entirely reset the frame and created new rules for the game:

Prove that the Word of God isn’t abusive and sexist, and that you aren’t really just a monster hiding behind the Bible!

The defenders fail before the first word has left their mouths, because they fail by accepting this frame. No amount of pleading or earnest assurance will placate the new spiritual authority and convince them that the portions of the Bible which offend them actually mean what they say. Abuse is the Christian feminists’ nuclear trump card against headship, and they play it with impunity.

I came across a textbook use of this tactic the other day on Catholic Answers Forum. The thread is old but the exchange is timeless. One poster asked what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 meant:

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Commenter Zundrah responded with an amusing rationalization before clumsily playing the abuse card:

My minister once told me – the women were seperate from the men. One side of chapel male – one side all female. Apparently the women would shout out to their husbands for answers on queries. I personally don’t believe that though (who would shout out in church?) But seriously… let’s be honest, the writer of this letter is obviously abusing women. Unfortunately, that is common in churches especially back in those days!
Hope women are not hurt by this – remember that jesus did not say that. A human man did but not our Lord christ who loves us unconditionally!

This mixed tactic of denial while half heartedly claiming abuse wasn’t effective though, and several other commenters grudgingly stated that the passage indeed appeared to mean what it says, and that it related to the spiritual headship of husbands. Zundrah gathered her composure and replayed the abuse card, this time with feeling:

Hmm, well excuse me but I will not hear this. Christ said love you neighbour. He did not say “34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.”
Christ said “come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will grant you peace.” How ever he did not say “Women are second rate and should be submissive even if their husbands batter and abuse them. Christ clear single message was; LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS THE FATHER LOVES YOU! He would never say to women “be submissive”. Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands. Think before you say so little on a very sensitive subject. Some women who read this might have been raped at some point of their lives. So to just say to them “be fully submissive” sounds very malicious and pure evil to me!

This was much more effective, although ultimately some of the men commenting were able to bring the conversation back to the long established Catholic reading of the passage. Throughout the discussion Zundrah follows the standard Christian feminist pattern of throwing out mutually exclusive explanations for why the verse in question should be ignored. She started with the funny story about wives calling over to their husbands in another section during the middle of the service, and then moved to the argument that it meant what it said but that it needed to be disregarded because some women have been raped. Ultimately she signs off on another woman’s explanation with a heart felt “Amen!”:

It doesn’t mean anything. At least not for todays christians, it was just speaking about the people that lived thousands of years ago. God left this in the bible to show us how things have changed.

The important thing to remember when you encounter women like Zundrah is none of her arguments have any real meaning, and shouldn’t be responded to as if they were a logical and/or sincere discussion of the Scripture. She is furious with this part of the Bible, and what comes out is pure emotion imitating the form of a logical argument; it isn’t an attempt to discuss the issue logically.

This tactic tends to be even more effective on Protestants, and Focus On The Family has an entire series of articles on “emotional abuse” by Mary J. Yerkes. She introduces the topic in Understanding Emotional Abuse, explaining that churches are teeming with abusive husbands who need to be kept in check:

While statistics are elusive, experts agree that emotional abuse—for mostly women, but some men as well—have reached epidemic proportions. And despite its everyday occurrence, few of us recognize it, identify it or even do anything about it.

“In the pews of every church, including yours, are women who are victims of abuse,”

She explains that the problem is abusive men twisting Scripture:

In regards to abuse within marriage, some misinterpret Ephesians 5:22 to justify abusive behavior.

She offers as an example the same piece of Scripture which enraged Zundrah at Catholic Answers Forums. We learn of one abusive husband named “Mark” who abused his wife by quoting the hurtful verse:

Although Janet had questions, she remained silent in order to “submit” to her husband. Like many abusers, Mark distorted Scripture to manipulate his wife’s behavior.

Just as the secular feminists define a man who holds traditional gender roles as abusive, the Christian feminist warns women that a traditional reading of the Bible is the tell tale sign of an abuser. Christian wives need to be ever vigilant, lest they become abused. In Healing the Wounds of Emotional Abuse, she offers “biblical principles and practical tips for healing”. Chief among these is the importance of recognizing your Christian husband as an abuser.

If you are reading this article, chances are you or someone you love is in an emotionally abusive relationship.

This is where the biblical approach becomes so crucial:

Invite the Holy Spirit to reveal the reality about a potentially abusive relationship. Admit you are being abused and recognize the damage it has done.

The other key approach for wives is to recognize the danger of submitting to their husbands. This traditional (and therefore twisted) reading of the Bible overlooks the Bible’s real wisdom for wives, the need to set boundaries:

Set appropriate boundaries. In the excellent book, Boundaries—When to Say Yes, When to Say No to Take Control of Your Life, Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend, explain how and when to set appropriate, biblical boundaries.

I’ve offered just two examples, but once you recognize the tactic you will notice it everywhere. The problem with the tactic is it makes it impossible to have an honest discussion of either biblical headship and submission or how to respond to actual abuse. It is a pungent emotional stink bomb designed to clear the room, and it is incredibly effective at this. Our best tactic against this is to recognize it for what it really is and deal with it accordingly.

389 Responses to No room for headship here.

Female submission is forbidden by feminism, except within the narrow confines of a sexual “kink” – and even then it’s pretty controversial.

Feminists want to be the dominant, they want to be the head. Christian/Biblical marriage is the opposite. It’s interesting how ostensibly conservative, traditionalist Christian women are as feminist as their secular, liberal counterparts and use the same arguments and talking points.

Some crazy broad visited my blog and started making exactly the same egalitarian arguments. When I moderated her longwinded and repetitive comments and suggested that she learn some cooking skills if she really wants to attract a man, she kinda went… insane, and wrote one of the longest screeds I’ve ever seen anyone write on any blog, ever. I won’t bother to link it here, but there’s a shorter one that should do away with the notion once and for all that conservative minded women have a better and more biblical view on marriage than liberals. Nope.

Her belief that any man who traditionally holds to headship will only attract women who are emotionally damaged, as they are the ONLY ones who would be willing to submit to a man. All submissive women then are mentally ill and emotionally unstable. Yes, seriously.

She’s also convinced that men asserting a headship role will (yes you guessed) physically and emotionally abuse their wives. This is coming from a conservative, Republican voting Christian woman who swears up and down that she is not a feminist. Uh huh.

This is quite terrifying. Think of the woman who is in submission to her husband. One who is quiet, pretty and listens to what her husband tells her. When he says, do X, she willingly complies. The women around her think she is being abused because, why would she treat her husband this way unless is it out of fear?

What happens when they call this out? When she tries to defend her husband they think the “abuse” has gone to her head and that she is too afraid to speak the “truth”. Anything she says to defend her husband, who she was serving quite biblically, will be used against her and him. And obviously, he can’t say anything right to defend himself either. The husband and the wife are judged for living a happy and biblical life.

@Hipter: “Feminists want to be the dominant, they want to be the head.” All worldly people, men and women, want to decide for themselves right and wrong, good and evil . All desire the freedom to do that which is right in their own eyes. Men hate the word ‘submit’ applied to them as much as women do. The church is full of worldly men and women who will not submit to God. the Word teaches that everyone is to submit to everyone. Men are to esteem everyone above themselves. Women are to esteem everyone above themselves. The only way to be able to do that is for everyone to be submitted to God. That is the starting point, if you desire a solution, and not just win a battle. Husband and wife are roles; they are not your position before Christ. This is a spiritual fight and must be fought in the spirit. Get the world out of the church. If men want victory in any way possible,convert to Islam.

And despite its everyday occurrence, few of us recognize it, identify it or even do anything about it.

They don’t recognize it BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL!

Ask yourself this, if everyday when you walked into work someone patted your back and said “good morning”, and you didn’t really like someone patting your back but what is the big deal, imagine someone making the point that “you are being physically abused and you don’t even know it”

That’s what is happening with this. Its an entire regime of recruitment because there is safety in numbers. Safety in what sense you ask? Safety in using this rationale at worst for frivorce, and at best for empathy raising.

This all makes sense if you realize that the majority of feminist directed changes that have occurred in the church have been in reaction to urban-legend-like myths of ogre men being taught and trending towards abuse.

In an article linked under recommended reading at Society of Phineas the writer describes how women have also addressed the exegesis aspect of these scriptures. He says they take the “trendy” approach (which self edifies) of studying all these scriptures in the original Greek.

If you want to see what that leads to, read this linked blog completely:

The church is full of worldly men and women who will not submit to God. the Word teaches that everyone is to submit to everyone. Men are to esteem everyone above themselves. Women are to esteem everyone above
themselves. ”

Diversion, delusion and rationalisation. Authority structures have been a part of the Church and the Christian life since the very beginning.

The Christian church today in American just doesn’t care about what the Bible says. Heck, today I was listening to the Burt Show (Atlanta Talk Show) and they had a “woman’s panel” to talk to a caller, a Christian guy who wanted to wait in sex until marriage, and not only were the women obviously talking about how they wouldn’t want to wait, and it would be a sacrifice, but they had a woman going “I’m a serious Christian too, but I didn’t want to wait until marriage, (insert typical line about ‘risks of waiting’).”

Leading to one of the male hosts to laugh and say, “What’s she’s trying to say is, she’s a Christian who has lots of sex!” You know what the woman hurriedly said back.

“In committed relationships, not hooking up or stuff!”

The American church today is just so out of wack. Heck, how many people think the Old Testament tithe is a commandment for the Christian church? How many know it was actually an income tax for the directly God-ordained priest class, and was over 20%, not a measly 10%? You can try to explain (with documentation) how it came from the church mimicking taxes from the middle ages in the age of serfs and lords, but 99% of Christians will still react like you said you skin babies and worship satan on sunday evenings.

Feminism: when women say “Non Serviam!” and would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Women who reject this find that the home can be close to heaven.

Catholics have a hierarchy. The answer to Zundrah is “do you stop obeying the church – including the disciplines, catechism, scripture, etc. when you don’t like what a Bishop says or does (but is something other than ordering you to sin)?”.

Obedience and order – submission – is commanded, and there is prudential judgment – if a husband ordered a wife to commit suicide so he would be free to marry again? Or use contraception? But even a superior in a monastery could order such.

Yet in most circumstances – any “gray” area, even most of the 50 shades – a vow to submit supersedes something inconvenient.

Do we obey and submit to Jesus only when convenient and pleasant? Or when it costs and is a trial and involves suffering? “I will only submit IF I think he is right” can apply both to the husband and our Lord. The husband is fallen, but he has been placed in authority.

Husbands have more to fear from Christian marital dominance and submission. The wife will be blameless and the husband responsible for any (gray area) sins due to a command which is obeyed.

Yet also take Mary’s response. “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”. Not “Let’s discuss this – will you do a pre-nup?…”. At Cana, she interceded, but ultimately told people “do whatever he tells you”. I.e. submit.

Yep, when I was posting on Boundless about marriage and submission the “Christian” women were more concerned about everything being “fair” and “equal” rather than following Biblical roles. Amusing, but pretty much a waste of time.

hey heartrszizte da GBFM is on summer vactctaziozn and although i regualry read u on my smart smart phonez zlzoozolzozoz i can’t ttypez i hate hate typoing on da little keyboard as it is hard to spelels spelzl SPELLZ zlzozoozoz irghtz zlzzoppzpzpzp

happy end of sumemrz daysz keep up da great workz

loozozozoo

da GBFM

p.s. i know many commentersz consider it a great vacation when da GBFM is on vacationz, but i know dat dey still luvz love mez, just like thehir uncle distant uncle who dey keep in da basement like da gbfm gimp zozozozozzlzzolzozloz

The true “herstory” is doomed to come out, and just like Northern Europe after a few decades of spiritual oppression, I see Bibles being printed by our country itself. To be honest, unless it is the end and we are witnessing the beginning of the apocalypse, I think mankind is going to come full circle and realize that what the Bible authors wrote all those years ago was one hundred percent true, and feminists are going to do like their historical counterparts the soothsayers, witches, and pagan worshippers did after those same times…go back underground where they came from. And where they belong.

I am fifty years old, and have lived my entirety in the South. I remember very well the revivals, jubilees, traveling evangelists, and all the calls to Faith that permeated the area I come from.

My parents did their best to raise me as a Christian, but it was not for me. In my late teens I left the church and never returned, but I still vividly recall the conversations and debates on the Bible’s teachings regarding marriage and the roles of man and wife. Since I never went back to that life, I have for all this time assumed that folks of that faith still held to the old beliefs, that feminism would have had little impact. Only after reading a few entries here about the application of pretzel-logic feminist ideology to biblical dialog have I realized the permeation of DV propaganda to Christianity.

It makes me feel pretty awful for those Christian brethren who want to do the right thing, and adhere to the teachings, and have to grapple with the contradictory views of an already contradictory species of women.

In the end it is easy to reach a goal when you just have to move the goal-posts. The Duluth Wheel of Power makes it easy to create the perception of abuse whenever it is needed to gain advantage.

“”Heck, how many people think the Old Testament tithe is a commandment for the Christian church?””

I tithe.I was raised this way.Of the Christians that I know,I don’t know of any that have told me that they tithe.I always assumed that it is a commandment.Give God was is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s……I believe is the way it goes.

Christianity is not a life-style choice. It is a matter of life or death. It is a claim to objective truth. And concerns the fate to ones soul. To take it lightly is to court disaster. If Jesus rose from the dead you ought to reconsider your current position.

They dont have to troll the site, all they have to do is send a daily flow of red pill commentators over the period of a few months, & the feminist commentators eventually overrun by red pill visitors

Then why is a high traffic blogger like Rollo, banned by Walsh, sending her huge amounts of traffic?

A similar occurence over at Price’s site & AVFM, high traffic from links to feminist sites, causing change in comments policies, due to an overwhelming majority of complaints by feminists as a result of the huge influx

This isnt the first time a site is impacted as a result of uncontrollable traffic from huge crowds of opposing views

If you examine the commentary, this is precisely what led to Walsh shutting down the comments section

Again I have to hand it to Rollo, its an ingenious strategy, & I’ll be implementing this on the relaunch of my own blog & sending huge waves of red pill visitors to overrun feminist sites …

Yes, male headship is losing ground very quickly among almost all Christians.

The thing that’s really amazing to me is when Catholics speak as if the Vatican is some sort of divinely-inspired social oracle that foresees the problems in our culture and offers carefully crafted, intelligent solutions. (Yes, I know what actual Catholic doctrine says about the papacy — I’m referring to what Catholics say.)

The truth is almost the reverse. The Catholic Church — especially in the United States — has been leading the charge to alienate men from religion.

Zundrah (regular member)
Join Date: 09 May 2009 [so this post on June 2009 was an early effort]
Religion: Christian [n.b. not specifically self-identifying as Roman Catholic]
Posts: 5,069 (i.e. about four a day for four years)

I cannot see how this problem is going to go away so long as women believe and indeed are encouraged by The State to be aware that they are innocent of all agency and that men are beasts intent on oppressing them. I am just amazed that Zundrah failed also to observe that all men are Rapists.

Zundrah went on to ‘Amen’ the following and without reprimand from Forum Master who attempted merely a defence of the early Church:

“It doesn’t mean anything. At least not for Christians today. It was just speaking about the people that lived thousands (sic) of years ago. God left this in the Bible to show how things have changed”. Talk about making it up as you go along, as well as a woeful grasp of historical time! Where’s a member of the Inquisition when you need one!

I was however pleased to see this women moan-fest ended in time honoured female way with the following from now banned member Lisa 44:

“One time I was overcome with tears and it was awful. After that I decided I should just pray the rosary at home. And when I feel like crying during Mass, I just tell myself to quit because Jesus didn’t cry on the cross”.

Of course he didn’t Lisa 44 (at least it has not been so recorded) as he was not a stupid emotional women!

I agree with Mary J. Yerkes, emotional abuse is rampant in Churchian Churches. These manipulators, who’ve distorted the Bible’s meaning so that they could abuse and subvert the true leadership in the Church, need to be shown for the abusers they are!

Shame on these abusers! Shame. I agree wholeheartedly with Mary, women in Church do indeed need to be kept in check so that they do not emotionally abuse the men in their Churches and instead allow men to lead as God declared.

Funny, I would say that Zundrah’s posts are a classic case of emotional abuse and manipulation to try win a debate. They are argued from a point of emotion (argumentum ad ignorantiam) by simply appealing to ‘feelings as fact’ instead of an objective search for fact. Such statements as: “Jesus loves us and therefore would never say such things” or “A human man wrote that and Jesus never said it and therefore God only left it there to remind us…” serve to undermine any value the Bible might have to be able to guide humanity. The purpose is simply, to throw away the Bible as the use of Church guidance to be replaced by emotions; and who better to guide with their emotions than women?

Notice the ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me is automatically an evil person’ heads off absolutely any attempt to argue the contrary. If you start from the premise that any person who disagrees with you, is evil, you have already manipulated your opponent into a corner. And that is nothing, if not abuse. Perfect open shut case of emotional abuse. You cannot argue against such use of emotion. It’s abusive in its intent and its intent is to shut down any and all debates to the contrary.

Feminist Hater:”allow men to lead” Men do not need to be allowed to lead. Your wording implies that you accept your place in a women’s world. Men submitted to and accountable to God need no permission except from God. Unbelieving men, accountable to themselves, need no permission. The men in church do not lead because they are not submitted to God, but rather to their wifes or mothers. They are worldly and they are cowards. They need to grow a pair and be men. Then, at least Jesus would not vomit every time He looks at them. You lose the secular war because you agree with their assumptions and their frame. You lose the spiritual war because you believe God is powerless.

Jesus does not vomit at us. He is aware of our shortcomings and failures. He is our perfection. Our behavior cannot redeem us. He is The redeemer and was God manifest in the form of man. He loves us so much that He chose to humble Himself to the degree of becoming a man.

they are BIG on boundaries today. They love their “boundaries”. Thing they don’t tell you is that it’s not a fence they set around themselves- its a fence they set around their man.

Thus, holding him captive to her whims and mood swings. The “boundaries” are code-words for techniques on how to dominate their men.

There are no “boundaries” in the bible. It is not scriptural.

In fact, what if Jesus had set “boundaries” ???

Anyway, one of the big issues about men ruling women biblically, is that women can truly not fathom granting a man authority over them. They cannot fathom it in their mind. Not only have men been marginalized down to a utility to be used and discarded, and to be dehumanized to where their only value is whatever way they can be in servitude to women- how would a woman let such a one rule over her? Plus, they see so many weak, wimpy, or otherwise incompetent men everywhere… this is the other part- they have scarcely seen or imagined a man who they *would* submit to. Certainly not their beta-ass father whom they ran roughshod over.

Not the LJBF Jesus whom they leave out in the car whenever they visit Harley McBadboy.

But lo, there is a man she will submit to- verily, to do what he says even at her own peril. To make deeply questionable choices to assuage…

The alpha male. Girls will ride a filth ridden bus across town just to sit in the right guy’s lap. She will abandon her friends and even allow herself to be consumed, in a sense, by a man who knows her psyche- by a man who requires of her- everything. In spite of all their railing against the dominance of men, they are betrayed by their own biology and their own spirit. This truth about women belies every feminist assertion.

It is amazing, too, that women would rail so hard against a passage that tells them to be silent when the word of God is being directly taught- even though they all know they would do best to shut the hell up sometimes, and they know how much their mouths tend to get them in trouble. They KNOW it is good advice, deep down, but can’t accept it just because they are so programmed to reject direction from men. They even label Paul as an abuser and just some guy.

God used Paul to write half the new testament. Paul was not an abuser of women- he was trying to help them, and the wise women know that they are often their own worst enemy. Paul was the ultimate MGTOW. Maybe he understood women better than most. Women are mostly scandalous bitches who hate each other, and they all know it, but they always show this indignant stance whenever a rebuke is delivered.

Foolish, foolish, foolish.

“whom the Lord loves, He rebukes”

The setting of ‘boundaries’ and the capricious suggestions of ’emotional abuse’ have taken the love of God in the form of His rebukes, and depicted that love to be abusive, hateful, and worthy of scorn.

God’s love is rejected and scorned by women who do this. Just as they reject and scorn the LJBF Jesus and every other beta male. They have taken the Creator of the universe and declared him unfit to lead, unloving, abusive, and they have usurped the very throne of God with this act.

If I was a Churchian/feminist like the people in the OP, I wouldn’t venture outside in a thunderstorm. God has his ways, and when gentle rebuke does not soften hearts of rebellion, greater heartbreak may follow, that God may do the work He promised to do.

Jesus does not vomit at us. He is aware of our shortcomings and failures. He is our perfection. Our behavior cannot redeem us. He is The redeemer and was God manifest in the form of man. He loves us so much that He chose to humble Himself to the degree of becoming a man.”

Actually vascularity777, that is 100% WRONG and typical of churchians

What you are saying is that a woman can fuck and suck 100 guys and have ten bastard kids, and then show up at church, accept Jesus, and demand that betas support other men’s kids because “Jesus is aware of her shortcomings and failures. Jesus is her perfection. Jesus loves her so much that He chose to humble Himself to the degree of becoming a man.”

vascularity777, I highly recommend you read the words of Jesus Christ instead of those of your bastardizing, corrupting feminist preachers:

Never Knew You

21Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Jesus will say to you, vascularity777, “I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity,” as you do not believe that behavior matters to Jesus Christ, as you asininely write, “Our behavior cannot redeem us.”

The Ancients Noted the tendency of women to follow butt and gina tinglzlzzo over God, Truth, Honor, and Beauty. They enshrined this reality in the beautiful myths in Genesis, whence Eve is the first to follow the serpent (lotsas coaks zllzozo). Thus they saw that for the Church to function, each man would have to watch over his wife and keep her from straying and following her butt and gina tingzlzlzozozo over Truth, God, and Law. Civilization itself is patriarchal–there is no such thing as a matriarchal civilization, as that is but a jungle-like world ruled by butt and gina-tingzlzlzoz. To deconstruct the patriarchy is to destroy civilization, which is why the fiat master bankers used the feminist movement to conquer Western Civilization.

Bobbye, this is where I disagree with all those men who say men just need to grab their balls. I double triple dare you to do it. Go show us. Lead the Church instead of telling us to grab our balls.

Just don’t complain if you end up in jail.

Now back to reality. I will say it again. You cannot lead without the authority to do it. If a commander didn’t have the authority of rank, his soldiers would not follow him. If he did not have the power of authority to punish them for insubordination, he couldn’t lead.

We do indeed have authority from God to lead, but this is where you and I disagree. I don’t want to lead those who do not wish to be led by me. I refuse to. If women choose to lead themselves into hell’s gates, I shall not stop them. Funny thing, nor will Jesus.

“Bobbye says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:10 am
Feminist Hater:”allow men to lead” Men do not need to be allowed to lead. Your wording implies that you accept your place in a women’s world. Men submitted to and accountable to God need no permission except from God. Unbelieving men, accountable to themselves, need no permission. The men in church do not lead because they are not submitted to God, but rather to their wifes or mothers. They are worldly and they are cowards. They need to grow a pair and be men. Then, at least Jesus would not vomit every time He looks at them. You lose the secular war because you agree with their assumptions and their frame. You lose the spiritual war because you believe God is powerless.”

So Bobbye, have you “grown a pair and become a man?”

Please do share now, what laws/rules have you changed that have helped bolstered marriage?

Which universities have you started teaching the GREAT BOOSKS FOR MEN whcih teach women how to behave?

Exactly what I mean. Everyone was taught it, and people will get angry if you simply show them the Scripture about it. They don’t realize the simple facts: the tithe was actually 23%, and it was basically a state income tax to support the official church, which was the Temple–and being before the time of Christ, it had a official priest class. However, after Christ died on the cross–any person can go before God in spirit and in prayer. So what does it say that we preach an official tithe, commanded by God? It’s basically everyone saying, “Yep, you preachers are the priest class, better than us, chosen by God himself to be a mediator between God and man.” Whatever happened to Christ? Now we just get taught a BS version of it so the church can fund bigger buildings and people can get warm fuzzies.

Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and Genesis, and this is why the Churchians HATE Jesus, Moses, and Genesis.

One of the remarkable things of the “Christian” (Churchian) manopshere is how much they hate the MANLY Jesus, Moses, and the prophets and saints.

They also hate the MANLY Homer, Virgil, Dante, Einstein, Newton, and Paul. Basically, they hate the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN as the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN don’t give a crap about the butt and gina tingelzoozoz that chruchian men and women are slaves to. And because the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN don’t care about butt and gina tiznzgzlzlolozozlz they are the ultimate form of game as they rise far, far above fallen, earthly game and mere material pursuits that the churchians so love and swear by.

It is really quite remarkable how there is post after post after post about marriage, and never once do they turn towards Jesus nor Moses nor Genesis.

Were Jesus to arise today, they would crucify him during the typical sermon and resume thei rbutthetxxinzgz and gianattstetxingz and serving tinzgzlzozozozooz over God, Law, Reason, Homer, Honor, Moses, and Jesus.

Long story short, Jesus came to Fulfill the Law of Moses and Genesis, and that really pissed off the churchians:

3: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There is no mention of how much mammon a husband has to make, nor how much he must neg his wife to keep her butt and gina going tinzgzlzlzloozlzlzozzlzozol. There is no economic analyses of how Genesis was penned so that men would be more productive and sell more subrime loans or porn subscriptions once they got married. This is why the churchians have rejected Moses and Jesus.

Leadership does not consist of appointing ones self General and demanding everyone follow. Jesus said “follow Me”. He did not say, ” I’m the Son of God and I would like to be your leader if you will, please”. Jesus spoke His Father’s Word, and those with ears and eyes to hear followed. He was their leader because they followed willingly, not of compulsion. Jesus never went in a synagogue or the Temple and demanded that people do what He said. He did, however, speak and do the will of His Father in those places. Any man committed to God can do the same. And yes, most churches will probably ask you to either shut up or leave. Wipe their dust from your shoes and leave. Any man can also speak and do the will of God in their family. Maybe it will lead to divorce, maybe to salvation. But a man committed to God should do the will of God, not his own will, or his wife’s will, or his mom/dad’s will, not the government’s will, not the church’s will. What have I done you ask as though I have anything to do with your doing the will of God. I have, nor will I ever suggest that anyone follow me. I am nothing, but that should not excuse you from being a man of God. GBFM, you are a very smart man, but you rely on human authorities too much. If it were not true you would not have asked for my credentials. There is no authority(power) but God. And you are nt higher or lower in His eyes than anyone. God is not a respecter of persons.

> There is no reason for a man to go to church except to treat it as a place to harvest sluts for short-term sex….

Yeah, that is the godly approach…. You are not going to make many inroads with people aiming to be godly by advocating that. It is just another manifestation of the problem with the modern system, not something to be advocated.

@tz,

> I think Saphira pushed Ananias.

Act 5:9 NKJV – Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband [are] at the door, and they will carry you out.”

No need to read into it. They agreed together. Men are more than capable of leading wives into sin as much as the reverse. The point being made is that they were unified in their sin, not who was leading. Don’t water down the Scriptures to make a pet point.

RE: Tithing:

I do not find tithing to be an NT requirement and the Scriptures used to justify it are weak. (Abraham only tithed once that we know of, not throughout his life.) That said, those who do not tithe tend to give very little of their income to the Lord’s causes, contrary to their claims. A few snowflakes exist, but it is often an excuse to give nothing or token amounts. Firstfruits is clearly a principle in the Scriptures, as is the idea that our treasure and our heart end up in the same place.

Though this bears a lot more thought and study, as a lot of modern charity is very counterproductive.

Note that the tithe means “10%”. You can say the Law required whatever you want, but a tenth is still a tenth.

@Solomon,

Boundaries are a perfectly fine concept. I have cut off talking with my son at the present as he will not respect me as his father. I have a “boundary” there and limit myself. (Partly to make sure I don’t get into supplicating behavior in the name of building a “relationship”.) How is that boundary bad?

Having control over your own behavior is a good thing. Attempting to control and manipulate others is witchcraft.

GBFM,

You need to read a few more of those great books. Sin can and is forgiven. The example you give will leave the woman in a horrible spot, but forgiveness is not the issue. Grace is a really hard concept for most to understand, whether they seem light or hard on sin. It doesn’t remove the consequences, but the penalty truly has been paid. Paul was accused of asserting that we should sin more so grace would abound. That was clearly not the same message you are pumping, as your message would never lead to that conclusion. Paul was also not soft on sin.

You need to read a few more of those great books. Sin can and is forgiven. The example you give will leave the woman in a horrible spot, but forgiveness is not the issue. Grace is a really hard concept for most to understand, whether they seem light or hard on sin. It doesn’t remove the consequences, but the penalty truly has been paid. Paul was accused of asserting that we should sin more so grace would abound. That was clearly not the same message you are pumping, as your message would never lead to that conclusion. Paul was also not soft on sin.”

BradA , have you ever read any of the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN? IF so, which ones?

BradA, our problem today is that too many “men” like you are leading the church and forgiving all the slutty-slut sluts and then burdening the good men with the task of supporting the bastard children, thusly bastardizing Christ by using Chirst to enslave good men while forgiving the sluuttty slutz to selfishly please your “Captain-Save-A-Ho” sensibilities and lust for support form slutz.

Can someone show me where in the bible it says hitting your spouse is abuse? Because if it doesn’t I’m simply going to start responding with “it isn’t abuse.” The words racist, mysnogist, abuser, etc are quickly becoming meaningless to my generation.

@BradA please open your eyes to anything written by @Solomon – he has been reared in a world of the Church, and he understands (and follows) the texts you are referring to… at the same time he had to come to the realizations that will soon visit your life. Why will they come to you? Because you sound like a great man that’s super kind, giving, hard-working, successful and above all – NICE. To understand the recipe, you should read the book “The Altar” – it’s the anti-dote to the sick beast in movie form known as “Fireproof”

ALL married men should pay attention to the words of @Solomon

He wrote in the above comment (note, he’s not referring to boundaries with children):

“The alpha male. Girls will ride a filth ridden bus across town just to sit in the right guy’s lap. She will abandon her friends and even allow herself to be consumed, in a sense, by a man who knows her psyche- by a man who requires of her- everything. In spite of all their railing against the dominance of men, they are betrayed by their own biology and their own spirit.”

Sure I appreciate Cloud/Townsend I’ve spent enough time with them. They have, in the past, given some decent advice. But they do not have the wisdom of @Solomon. If Cloud and Townsend did not have the appearance of fame and wealth, they, too would be treated poorly by spouses and children.

Eh
Ok, a perfectly fine concept.
Living a life filled with happiness is a perfectly fine concept
Soul mate is a perfectly fine concept
GRACE is a perfectly fine concept

By perfectly fine I do not mean biblically prescribed, i just mean they seem harmless and possibly pretty good cool things. Heck just sayin’ em likely releases one of those hormones that make us euphoric.

Feeding hungry bears is a fine concept too.

If you do that, and you are not tightly controlled about it, you will be devoured.

Such is the case with churchian women and the way they manifest these “perfectly fine concepts”. A husband who nods to the concept of boundaries, which by the way the books sold to women and Christian counselors (who refer women to them) at multiples to one compared to sales to men. Why? Because like most church task-ish prescriptions that are tools used to rear and control, even parent husbands by wives. Its like putting a nubile naked woman in front of a man with no one around and a clean opportunity to exploit the situation, then offering a churchian rationale for him acting out.

You hand that stuff to the women in today’s church, EXPECT it to be used against you. The whole language of that sort of thing is geared to fit man bad woman good.

“….our problem today is that too many “men” like you (BradA) are leading the church and forgiving all the slutty-slut sluts and then burdening the good men with the task of supporting the bastard children, thusly bastardizing Christ by using Chirst to enslave good men while forgiving the sluuttty slutz to selfishly please your “Captain-Save-A-Ho” sensibilities and lust for support form slutz…..”

I have a comment to your response to Brad which runs parallel to the purpose of this thread of Dalrock’s about there being no room for headship.

I don’t see BradA leading the church and forgiving all the slutty-slutz. I don’t see him (or anyone really) SHAMING them either, mostly because it does NO GOOD to do so, what’s done is done. I don’t really think there is ANY motivation by any church to burden the good men with the task of supporting the bastard children. Government (thanks to LBJ and his “Great Society”) already does that. In that sense Goverment is “Life of Julia’s” headship.

Now, the bastards didn’t ask to be born. More to the point, even if we DID have the power to ask God to be born (which we don’t as that is not in the Great Books For Men) none of us would ever choose to be born a bastard. That is like a batter walking up to the plate with 2 strikes already against you, 2 outs, no one one base, and you are down by three runs in the ninth inning. You (the bastard) are basically screwed. You have NO moral compass as you have NO true male headship. If you are a girl, you are most likely going to wind up a single mom slutty-slut like your mom. If you are a boy, you are most likely going to wind up in jail.

BUT!!!!!! Along comes a Christian man who read the Great Books for Men, a Man who knows his role in headship and understands that this slutty-slut’s kids need him a lot more than he will ever need their mom. He does the WHITE KNIGHT MANLY THING and marries the slutty-slut NOT because he is dumb @ss who wants to needlessly burden his life financially with her mistakes but INSTEAD because he KNOWS that her kid(s) are going to look up to and revere him more than any kids would normally look toward their own parents. Maybe that doesn’t happen immediately, but it WILL happen. And God Almighty will recognize what a great thing that man did (of his own free will I might add) by looking out for and providing for those bastards, those children he did not sire.

Even if society does not respect and honor this man, that’s okay. Because this man has the Great Books for Men and he knows that God loves him all the more for what he did.

Now this man has total and complete headship. That could even be negotiated long before he marries the slutty-slut. Either way, it isn’t likely that the slutty-slut is going to do anything other than completely SUBMIT to this man that stepped up and made her whole. After all, where else is she (and her bastards) going to go?

Can someone show me where in the bible it says hitting your spouse is abuse? Because if it doesn’t I’m simply going to start responding with “it isn’t abuse.” The words racist, mysnogist, abuser, etc are quickly becoming meaningless to my generation.

This is nonsense. Just because feminists want to trivialize abuse doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing. Christian husbands have a high bar to meet regarding how they treat their wives, and (real) abuse isn’t remotely consistent with the biblical instruction on headship.

Dalrock, could you show the wordpress codes you uses to indent that italicize that quote from “The One?” I would like to use those (instead of quotes) on these blogs but I don’t think the standard html lessthansign-i-greaterthansign and lessthansign-slash-i-greaterthansign is going to do it….

[D: Use the word “blockquote” inside the less than/greater than signs with a / before the word in the closing tag. This page shows what it looks like (easier to link than to find the escape chars to let me type it so you can see it). You can use I, B, and U the same way for italics, bold, and underline.]

innocentbystanderboston says:
August 4, 2013 at 5:17 pm
RE:
I respect what you are saying, and find myself in agreement with much of it.
BUT…if slutty-slut claimed “the faith” prior to the consequences of her slutty behavior, there NEEDS to be some sort of earthly sanction….dare I say it…JUDGEMENT!!!!
I have friends and relatives who were frivorced by alleged christian wives and these ex-wives suffered NO sanction from the body of believers, and they proceed to attend church with their newest sperm donor and there is NO shame, sanction, gossip, NOTHING….total free pass!
This sort of thing is killing the church! Most of these men have abandoned the church because of this too!
SO, my point, if the slut is of the world, then yes, Christians must forgive and be salt and light to the fallen, but if the slut is an alleged churchian, I won’t even acknowledge their presence.
I do the vociferous slut shaming so my daughter will know there are standards of behavior, men do judge, vows do matter, honor is earned.
Victim children get a pass and are mentored in every way possible…suffer the little children, absolutely!

This is as true for Christian feminists as it is for their secular counterparts.

First of all, we need to get our terminology straight. Remember: the term “Christian feminist” is an oxymoron. The appropriate term is “churchian feminist (recognizing that this might often be redundant).

Just as the secular feminists define a man who holds traditional gender roles as abusive, the Christian feminist warns women that a traditional reading of the Bible is the tell tale sign of an abuser.

Bearing in mind what I said in my first paragraph above, any Christian
man or woman who hears the above message delivered from a “church” setting needs to do either one of two things, depending on how committed they are to the body from which the message was delivered:

1. Run, Forrest, RUN! The person delivering this message is not a Christian, nor is the body sanctioning its delivery a Christian church. Get thee away to some other body that actually preaches and advocates the content of the Scriptures. If that means assembling a gathering of true believers in your own living room on Sunday morning, then amen, so be it.

2. Stand up and raise the proverbial “BS flag” and call the speaker out on their error. This is the solution if you are truly interested in reforming the body of which you are a member (a la the actions of Joseph of Jackson).

It really is past time that a stop was put to this nonsense. Either starve the beast and let it die of its own cancer, of rip the cancer out and let the patient recover!

I respect what you are saying, and find myself in agreement with much of it.

Thank you.

BUT…if slutty-slut claimed “the faith” prior to the consequences of her slutty behavior, there NEEDS to be some sort of earthly sanction….dare I say it…JUDGEMENT!!!!

Okay, so what earthly sanction should there be? What do we do? In church, you might here the Churchian Pastor empowering them, but the slutty-slut single moms still feel shame. Talk is cheap. They feel it. They are NOT proud of their situation.

More to the point, many of the slutty-slut single moms I have seen in church are turning to the church specifically BECAUSE they are single moms and they are church-hopping (for lack of a better phrase) to find a marry a Christian daddy. They know they screwed up and well… what would you have them do? Where are they supposed to go? Right now they are going to government which means we are ALL paying to make them whole anyway. (They sinned and we pay.)

I have friends and relatives who were frivorced by alleged christian wives and these ex-wives suffered NO sanction from the body of believers, and they proceed to attend church with their newest sperm donor and there is NO shame, sanction, gossip, NOTHING….total free pass!
This sort of thing is killing the church! Most of these men have abandoned the church because of this too!

That is a different issue. You should forgive (as to forgive is Devine) but you do NOT have to associate with them. Tell your pastor (in private) that you are leaving the church. Tell him why. Tell the Diaconate. Tell them you have a daughter to raise and under no circumstances do you want her to think that what these ex-wives did is acceptable Christian behavior. Pick a new church. Vote with your feet and your wallet.

One of three things will happen: #1) you will never hear from that Pastor or the members of that Church again, #2) they will ask you to reconsider but will NOT be making any changes on their own part (in which case, they are really doing nothing and you leave) or #3) they will contact you to tell you that you are right and that the Pastor might start sermonizing on it. What will not happen is the chuch will not ask that ex-wife and her current sperm donator to leave. If that is what you want, you will never get what you want.

SO, my point, if the slut is of the world, then yes, Christians must forgive and be salt and light to the fallen, but if the slut is an alleged churchian, I won’t even acknowledge their presence.

You don’t have to acknowledge them. BUT!!!! if another man steps up and MARRIES a single mom (particularly one that was never married) well, I am saying the the man is being a GREATER MAN than a man that wouldn’t settle for anything less than a virgin bride. Some here may call him a chump. I call him a great man. He is following those Great Books for Men. lolozlozllzzlozlol because he knows that butt and gina tingles, and he can help her with that tingling before more bastards come along…

I do the vociferous slut shaming so my daughter will know there are standards of behavior, men do judge, vows do matter, honor is earned.

I have a daughter too and yes, fathers need to play a protective role. Teach them that honor is earned.

As a dad, I used to carry my daughter on my shoulders all the time. All the time. She ALWAYS wants/wanted me to “pick her up” and this is learned behavior from me always carrying her. NOW, she is choosing large, heavy, tall boys (your average high school offensive tackle) and is attracted to them because they remind her of her tall big daddy. She is attracted to boys big enough to carry her. This is learned behavior on her part, she learned it from me, she is choosing boys that remind her of her daddy.

As fathers we have a lot of power over our daughters in the mates they choose. If we are loving, caring, protective dads, who are fair but firm, our daughters will choose men LIKE US. That is a great responsibility but as lolzzzlololozzzozo says, that is right there in those Great Books for Men.

Victim children get a pass and are mentored in every way possible…suffer the little children, absolutely!

True Buck. But without a great step-dad, it is really hard. Dare I say, I don’t think those bastards have a chance.

You quote someone else, who claims:In the pews of every church, including yours, are women who are victims of abuse

I think it’s interesting to compare/contrast the author and regular commenters of this blog, who have never minimized or justified actual abuse, with feminists like the one who wrote this nutty, paranoid claim, who minimize real abuse as a matter of regular policy.

Abuse actually does exist. There are people (both men and women) who have gotten themselves involved with lunatic partners who harm them on a regular basis. This is a real, honest-to-goodness tragedy; but it isn’t common.

Claiming that abuse is universal, and includes things like disagreement over what the monthly slush fund should be spent upon, not only conflates “abuse” with any minor dispute, but does real harm to those people (including women) who get their teeth knocked out, eyes blackened and etc. By universalizing “abuse” to include a lot of nonsense, people get desensitized to the actual (very rare, but very real) problem of abuse, as it actually exists in the real world.

In the pews of some churches, there are women who are victims of abuse, who are likely not taken seriously, due to feminists who have diluted the concept of abuse itself. When “abuse” includes “no, we can’t afford to buy a new car this year”, the word ceases to have any real meaning at all.

And again, I find it incredibly interesting to note that when discussing *actual* abuse (as opposed to the feminist universalism model) I have never seen anyone here on the dalrock blog minimize or justify it. If one of the usual wimminz can point to the author of this blog or any regular commenter laughing about people getting physically injured by others, I’ll retract this claim.

I’ve always felt that men who marry single moms are extreemly selfish. They can help the children without marrying their mother. And what message would he be sending to the “slutty sluts’ ” son???

And what is the message that you’re sending Bystander? That a man who loves the Lord and His Word is not as great as a man who disobeys the Bible. That it is moral behavior to play the role of homewrecker??? Because everyone is doing it, so better it be a Christian who is homewrecking?

Faith would be believing that an all powerful God is able to perform a miracle and give that child a real family with their real mom and dad. Faith is NOT purposely sabotaging any chance of that happening.

The definition of a miracle is something which which had zero chance of happening, but happened anyways because of God.

God can create the universe, but reconciling a family is too hard for him?

He can part the red sea, but reconciling a family is too hard for him?

You need to read a few more of those great books. Sin can and is forgiven. The example you give will leave the woman in a horrible spot, but forgiveness is not the issue. Grace is a really hard concept for most to understand, whether they seem light or hard on sin. It doesn’t remove the consequences, but the penalty truly has been paid. Paul was accused of asserting that we should sin more so grace would abound. That was clearly not the same message you are pumping, as your message would never lead to that conclusion. Paul was also not soft on sin.

I think you guys are talking about apples and oranges, and you’d agree if you were open enough to examine the details.

In the text, sin is nullified through grace, but there are often natural results of sin which remain, and through which we have to struggle.

The text tells us not to whore around, particularly if we are married. If some brother decides to violate the text, and step out with some slutty slut slut, despite having a devoted, loyal, submissive and willing wife at home, then the text clearly calls him a violator. He is sinful.

Of course he can be forgiven if he’s truly repentant, according to the rules of the text; but, that doesn’t magically make the herpes sores disappear, which he picked up while out with various other women. That part is a natural consequence of the sin, which the God of the bible lets you suffer through. He can forgive you for the offense against him, but the collateral damage is yours and you just have to deal with it. A believer could complain about this, but I’d imagine that God would tell him that he should have taken that good advice in the book seriously to begin with.

Moreover, while God can forgive him, his wife and her family aren’t God. They don’t necessarily have to forgive him. He might get divorced anyway (particularly if he spread an STD to his wife). Hey, who could blame her? I can’t really. That’s part of the deal with marriage: not whoring around. Why should your spouse suffer for your own weaknesses and mistakes?

See how this works? As I understand things, both you and GBFM are right. You are just talking past one another and not seeing the big picture.

innocentbystanderboston says:
August 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm
“Okay, so what earthly sanction should there be? What do we do? In church, you might here the Churchian Pastor empowering them, but the slutty-slut single moms still feel shame. Talk is cheap. They feel it. They are NOT proud of their situation.”

I would beg to differ on this point, many are not tinged with guilt at all!

“More to the point, many of the slutty-slut single moms I have seen in church are turning to the church specifically BECAUSE they are single moms and they are church-hopping (for lack of a better phrase) to find a marry a Christian daddy. They know they screwed up and well… what would you have them do? ”

Again, I don’t see this sort of introspection from the churchian sluts at all. I hear what a jerk the baby-daddy is (of course, my question is, why did you spread your legs for him then?), how lousy her parents treat her, how paltry the welfare check is, jerk baby-daddy doesn’t pay child support… but contrition….VERY RARE!!!!

I’ve always felt that men who marry single moms are extreemly selfish.

Selfish? That’s odd. Taking on the financial burden of supporting children he did NOT sire is selfish? You lost me on that one.

SelfLESS maybe. Not selfish.

They can help the children without marrying their mother.

Yeah but… er, no. No, they dad. Kids need daddies. Certainly if these kids have a relationship with their father (and their father supports them) that would be different, but I’m not really talking about that.

And what message would he be sending to the “slutty sluts’ ” son???

Well that depends entirely on the previous marital status of his mom. I think I see where you are going with your point so I’ll try and explain my point in the next paragraph.

And what is the message that you’re sending Bystander? That a man who loves the Lord and His Word is not as great as a man who disobeys the Bible.

Welp, I need you to quote some scripture from one of the Great Books for Men then to correct me. When I think of the following…

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

…that refers to a man who marries a woman who is divorced. Let me be clear:

Single Mom != Divorced Mom

Neither is something a woman should want to be. One is shameful. The other is damn hurtful (sinful as you might be destroying a man.) But neither is something a woman wants to be.

Being a single mom, to me is almost abusive because you knowingly bring children into this world through your lust and your daughters are 5 times as likely to duplicate your infernal behavior and your sons are five times as likely to wind up incarcerated. Looking at our prison population, you would think that almost all of them were sons of single moms. But (as far as I can tell) marrying a mom who was never actually married isn’t adultery.

And obviously, no man wants to commit adultery. Some men married divorced women unknowlingly. Some men married divorced women but felt that was “okay” because she was in a horrible marriage that she had to escape. I certainly hope that the Lord our God forgives them that trespass.

That it is moral behavior to play the role of homewrecker??? Because everyone is

doing it, so better it be a Christian who is homewrecking?

If she is “divorced” and their natural father is a huge part of his children’s lives (and they love and respect their father) then yes, you very well might be homewrecking (particularly if she didn’t have a DAMN GOOD REASON for divorcing this man.) So yeah, there isn’t a whole lot of honor there on the part of the man marrying that woman.

If (however) she was never married, or their father wants absolutely NOTHING to do with his offspring, than this man that marries the slutty-slut isn’t exactly homewrecking. He is homemaking.

Faith would be believing that an all powerful God is able to perform a miracle and give that child a real family with their real mom and dad. Faith is NOT purposely sabotaging any chance of that happening.

I agree. Totally. What if their father wont marry her? That is usually the case. What if she has two children from two different daddies, and neither will marry her? Is an all powerful God going to hold a man that IS willing to marry her and support her children as a saboteur? Help me out here man….

The definition of a miracle is something which which had zero chance of happening, but happened anyways because of God. God can create the universe, but reconciling a family is too hard for him? He can part the red sea, but reconciling a family is too hard for him?

God IS reconciling a family. The real dad wont marry the mom. The mom is now married to government. Her kids are screwed. Then a man comes along who not only loves the mom but also her children. God gives us Free Will LFM, but I tend to think that God is playing a role here in helping this woman (particularly if she would have married the father of her children, but he wont have her.)

Yes, I know that there are circumstances where a dad will marry the mother of his children but she wont have him. In that case, then yes, she is evil and God will judge her for that. But lets not hold another man “responsible” because he comes along and falls in love with that woman and takes on the burden of supporting her children. Lets take it a little easier on our own gender here, okay?

Again, I don’t see this sort of introspection from the churchian sluts at all. I hear what a jerk the baby-daddy is (of course, my question is, why did you spread your legs for him then?), how lousy her parents treat her, how paltry the welfare check is, jerk baby-daddy doesn’t pay child support… but contrition….VERY RARE!!!!

I do not know about the contrition (how rare it is or isn’t.) What I know about is the MOTIVE single moms have in attending church. They don’t want to be “single” anymore.

Yes I am no expert by any means, but I do have a little personal experience here. Is what she is doing so horrible? What choice does she have? Now you and I can debate as to whether or not this is something WORTHY (on her part, given how badly she screwed up) but it is what they do.

@
“What I know about is the MOTIVE single moms have in attending church. They don’t want to be “single” anymore.”

And they have heard that church guys are easy marks, church congregations are easy to loot, and the same rebellion that led them to reject God and his law and slut it up, informs them on how to exploit the virtue of Christian men.
Big brothers is a wonderful organization! You can help, and not put a ring on some born-again-virgin. Then Ms slut can’t screw you over then claim her cash, prizes, AND sympathy from churchian white knights who will now turn on their once brother-in-Christ/ “abuser”.

Here is the problem in a nutshell – it is better in the scheme of things for 1 out of 100 women to be seriously abused in marriage than for 99 other marriages to feature forced and cowed submission of the husband to the wife. In well over 1/2 of those marriages you’ll have divorce and severe dysfunction.

Women, looking at this, are not able to respond rationally but react much like an addicted gambler who doesn’t understand statistics. Women look at this and think “My GOD! I don’t want to be abused! I don’t want to beaten black and blue! I better vote for the politician who promises VAWA being strengthened and renewed!”. Then when her marriage crumbles 3 years later she will blame the man for his weakness while she runs off with the biker (who hits her regardless of the law). No logical causal connection is made between what she demands from the government and the sorry state of marriage today and what’s worse is that she’ll demand more of it until civilization itself collapses. Then you’ll get a return to non-biblical headship which is much more violent as its based merely on strength.

A good rule of thumb when dealing with governments is that if you let them scare you with horror stories it is their solutions which will makes those terrible futures come true.

Women, looking at this, are not able to respond rationally but react much like an addicted gambler who doesn’t understand statistics. Women look at this and think “My GOD! I don’t want to be abused! I don’t want to beaten black and blue! I better vote for the politician who promises VAWA being strengthened and renewed!”.

I might get flamed for this but women should not have been given the vote. IMHO, the 19th Amendment was a terrible mistake because it refuses to acknowledge the fundamental difference between men and women.

Men vote in what is in the best interest of their familes first, their country second. This usually means they vote for lower taxes and less entitlements since men know that (in a Republic such as ours) they ARE the government and they will be paying for whatever entitlements they think they need. Women tend to vote (first) in what is in the best interest of women. Their family and children are a distant second and their country is not typically on their radar when voting. There are exceptions of course.

Nonsense:
I don’t see BradA leading the church and forgiving all the slutty-slutz. I don’t see him (or anyone really) SHAMING them either, mostly because it does NO GOOD to do so, what’s done is done.

Of course it does. Almost all women in the United States would have tremendously improved personalities if they were even once humiliated and shamed by a man to the point where they KNEW, not lie-admitted.. but KNEW they had been a stupid b***.

For one thing their tendency to do the stupid b* dance over “every man is a pedophile” and “every man is a rapist” would go way down.

Conservative Animal says:
Men vote in what is in the best interest of their familes first, their country second. This usually means they vote for lower taxes and less entitlements since men know that (in a Republic such as ours) they ARE the government and they will be paying for whatever entitlements they think they need.

Almost nobody votes or acts for the actual good of the United States. If the Conservative Animal actually cared about the good of the United States, then the Conservative Animal would have demanded blood for the retarded Iraq War. Instead, the Conservative Animal seems to have forgotten that the Iraq War ever happened.

so sorry, single mom = divorced mom. the effects are the same and neither woman deserves a 2nd chance. for what is a second chance but an opportunity to demonstrate to other single or divorced women that they too can escape the full consequences of their extramarital sin. sins can be forgiven by God, but temporal consequences must still be observed.

Almost nobody votes or acts for the actual good of the United States. If the Conservative Animal actually cared about the good of the United States, then the Conservative Animal would have demanded blood for the retarded Iraq War. Instead, the Conservative Animal seems to have forgotten that the Iraq War ever happened.

How in the hell do you know whatever? Women voted for the political leaders they are the majority vote.

Wow that..”dude” has earned a gold medal in the captain save a ho olympics…. the greater man marries a single mom….. No. The beta who does such a thing is doomed and has propped up the entire single mom industry helping to ensure another generation of problems

You COULD chop this idiotic pathology off at the root: “Submission is what a dog does when you kick it”

Ah! That lovely chestnut. Sure, that is a TYPE of submission, which comes by force. Then there is that whole, “if you would follow, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow…” because that too is submission. I would submit also, to the fact that if a woman does not submit to her husband she has no love for him. Likewise, whatever discipleship she has to the Lord is largely the work of her own imagination.

This blog is infested with balless, “Captain Save a Ho,” White Knights who are so, so desperate to make a slutty sutz gina tingle that they will support immoral welfare, bastardy, the eradication of the family and patriarchy via women following their gina and butt tinglslellelzozos over God’s Law, and seizing your assets at gun point by the state to support the legions of bastard children brought into this world via fallen women’s choice alone. The soulless manginas sell out their very own brothers and use this immoral stunt to profit privately while growig the churchian state and replacing Jesus with worship of the gina and butt tinglzzozoz.

My pastor said on Sunday that the word “submit” in the New Testament is the Greek word “Hupotasso” which means to come up under the authority of. Very few amens on that one. Especially from women.

However, when my pastor talked about older men instructing younger men about being chivalrous gentlemen (opening and holding doors for women and letting women go ahead of you) of course everyone was on board. I’m thinking why not teach some of these women to yield and let a man open and hold a door for them and to allow him to direct you ahead of himself?

This is nonsense. Just because feminists want to trivialize abuse doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing. Christian husbands have a high bar to meet regarding how they treat their wives, and (real) abuse isn’t remotely consistent with the biblical instruction on headship.
~Dalrock

K, but you didn’t answer the question. What is the definition of abuse and where in the bible does it say so? Christians are making a big mistake by agreeing with feminists that all unwanted physical contact=abuse. So now we have unwanted sex=martial rape, slapping and pushing=abuse. And what grew out of that? Spanking is now abusing children.

Here is a recent factoid on the bottom of my compassion letter. UNICEF “1.2 million girls, boys, and adolescents have been physically punished at least once” okay…why is that there, it that a sin?

Anne Barnhardt has a great piece entitled “Jesus will break your leg part 1 and 2” which Many on here should read. This idolatry of the body has to stop. As I stated in the beginning, I believe Christians are making a huge mistake defining physical abuse as any unwanted physical contact. This is an anti-biblical position.

There comes a point where you should quit arguing, and instead simply state your position and then stand by it.

Instead of getting drawn out into side arguments, maybe we should focus on whether someone believes the Bible (the entire Bible) is the inerrant word of God–the absolute truth. It’s obvious the woman quoted in this blog does not believe this. We’d do better to point out her underlying assumption–that the Bible is not true–than to get into debates with her over Biblical passages that she doesn’t believe are true to begin with.

Until someone accepts God’s word, you won’t be successful debating the finer points of God’s word with them. That acceptance is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, not of anything we do. Which is why sometimes I think the best approach is to simply tell people what the Bible says on a subject, and let the Holy Spirit convince them of the truth.

The irony about women and submission is that for a man that gives them the “tinglezz” (did I get that right?) she’ll volunteer – even beg – to submit, often in the most surprising and seemingly degrading ways. They are often embarrassed about these feelings, sometimes deeply ashamed of them, thanks to feminists and white knighters/pedestalizers.

Maybe Christian men ought to “ramp it up” in the bedroom to get a more submissive attitude outside the bedroom. Perhaps see my article “A reward for good behavior.” There shouldn’t be anything in that article that a Christian would find objectionable within the context of marriage.

Hipster Racist the churchian Mangina suggests that the solution is becoming a slave to butt and gina tinglesz instead of honoring God, Moses, and Jesus:

“Hipster Racist says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:24 am
The irony about women and submission is that for a man that gives them the “tinglezz” (did I get that right?) she’ll volunteer – even beg – to submit, often in the most surprising and seemingly degrading ways. They are often embarrassed about these feelings, sometimes deeply ashamed of them, thanks to feminists and white knighters/pedestalizers.

Maybe Christian men ought to “ramp it up” in the bedroom to get a more submissive attitude outside the bedroom. Perhaps see my article “A reward for good behavior.” There shouldn’t be anything in that article that a Christian would find objectionable within the context of marriage.

Just a thought.”

Hipster Racist’s mangina churchian interpretation the Gospels is that Jesus wants you to fuck hard fuck fuck fuck women in their buttz and ginas to make them go tinzzgzlzlzlzozozozozoozozozlzozozozozooz

Hipster Racist is a soulless little Christ-hating, Christ-denying churchian fanboy of butt and and gina tingellzlzzozoz which he kneels before as he shuns God, Law, and the Noble.

Not true, but yes, a commonly held misconception, because it is misapplied. Some women will do this for some men, mainly its the women selecting dregs that are the first grouping, the pile forms a pyramid from there up. Most men cannot move from tip to base. Maybe its worth a try, but this is no different functionally than the churchian claim that if a man sacrifice enough in leadership his wife will follow .

I read blog after blog and article after article from married women begging their husbands for this, not “dregs.”

I was somewhat surprised when an unmarried, chaste Christian man reacted with shock and disapproval at the idea that a Christian wife might want to be dominated sexually by her Christian husband. How in the world is that bad? Nothing in the Bible nor in Catholic doctrine would suggest such a thing is immoral.

Of course, she’s supposed to submit because of what God said, not arguing that. But in practical terms, this may be useful. It’s far, far, far, far more common than you think.

@Hopeful said: “My pastor said on Sunday that the word “submit” in the New Testament is the Greek word “Hupotasso” which means to come up under the authority of. Very few amens on that one. Especially from women.”

Maybe we should ask: what are men are getting out of this arrangement? IMHO, it allows men to unshoulder responsibility–real responsibility–for their life, their wife, and their family.

The Bible, when read in a traditional manner, loads a huge amount of responsibility onto the shoulders of men. The word “hupotasso” was also used to describe the arrangement of men under a commander in a military unit. Who bears the responsibility when a military unit screws up? The person in command.

There’s an old saying “when everyone is in charge, nobody is responsible,” and that’s the reality of the “mutual submission” marriage model. Men can stay in a perpetual child-man state; never having to fully accept responsibility for life (which, imho, is what turns boys into men). I’m not surprised that it’s so common to hear women complain that they feel at times more like their husband’s mother than their wife. The no-responsibility model is the one boys have with their mothers. When men cede their responsibility to their wives via mutual submission, it’s natural that the men fall back into boy/mother mindset.

Responsibility is a burden. It’s not fun or a game for most people. It’s not surprising that men have jumped at the chance to dump it.

When a wife submits to her husband’s leadership, the husband takes on additional responsibility for his wife–an additional burden. The burden to be responsible for her; the burden (as the Bible puts it) to sacrifice his life–his wants, his needs, and his desires–for her.

This blog is infested with balless, “Captain Save a Ho,” White Knights who are so, so desperate to make a slutty sutz gina tingle that they will support immoral welfare, bastardy, the eradication of the family and patriarchy

Well lolzzzlolozlzlolzlz, one of the worst things about LBJ’s “Great Soceity” is the paying of women to have children out of wedlock. Prior to the 1950 and 1960s, there was NO government money for single moms, not a penny. We had widows and orphans pensions, no single mom money. That is a relatively new government entitlement (been around at most 60 or 70 years.) Prior to that time, the kind of help single moms could expect was to go away to a home for wayward girls (usually financed by the Catholic Church), give birth to the child in secracy, and then give the child up for adoption. That is what they used to do before the government let them receive welfare checks and government housing. That all started to change in 1950s and 1960s.

Bastardy is a route almost straight to prison. Our prison population is overflowing with bastards who (through no fault of their own) were raised without fathers who would give their sons a swift kick in the ass when they f@cked up. That never happened because they had no fathers because GOVERNMENT subsidized their mothers to the point that they didn’t HAVE to give up their children for adoption. Moms giving up their bastards to adoption would have been the best thing that could have happened to these bastards. Instead, we have inner city bastard rates in the African-American community of almost 80% and marriage (in the inner city) has been completely destroyed.

These are facts, they are not in dispute. I don’t like what single mom’s have done to our country. None of us here do. But they have done it (and we have PAID THEM to do it) okay, so what do we do now?

via women following their gina and butt tinglslellelzozos over God’s Law, and seizing your assets at gun point by the state

Full stop. Don’t confuse and combine unrelated issues here, that is what women do because they are irrational and emotional. The seizing of YOUR assets at gun point by the state is no-fault-divorce. That could (and does) happen with ANY WOMAN, not just single moms that get married. ANY WOMAN that gets butt and gina tinglzz. I’ll bet a third to half of the men that post on this blog had this happen to them with their ex-wives, were they ALL single moms when they married them? I doubt it.

Don’t combine the issues. You discredit your worthy position.

to support the legions of bastard children brought into this world via fallen women’s choice alone.

Government is doing this. I told you. In 1920, we passed the 19th Amendment allowing women to vote. What has largely happened (thanks to women voting) is a massive expansion of federal government spending. This is because the female gender has a very difficult time understanding cause-and-effect. They tend to think money grows on trees and they will cry if hit with a dose of reality. And our Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen never met a spending bill they didn’t like (with the exception of military spending.) That is how they keep their jobs, playcating women with entitlement spending.

The soulless manginas sell out their very own brothers and use this immoral stunt to profit privately while growig the churchian state and replacing Jesus with worship of the gina and butt tinglzzozoz.

I am no mangina and I do not run any church. How do I “profit” in any way for encouraging a man to marry a single mom if he falls in love with her and loves her kids? Really, all taxpayers “profit” by this because this gets the single mom off of the government DOLE and into a partially functional family. Every single person on Dalrock’s blog “wins” when this happens provided she doesn’t divorce him. But as I stated before that could happen with any woman for any reason (or no reason.)

Hopeful – “I’m not following the point you are making. Could you explain please?”

While waiting on J to provide his/her answer, I’ll chime in and say that what I take as the point is that when given the opportunity to be freed from having to take on the demanding burden of headship – by simply letting a wife try to take on the job – some portion of men will be all too happy to do so.

I think J‘s point is a fair criticism of (some) men, and is really not unlike the realization that when societal constraints are removed from women, some portion of them will likewise revert to a more feral lifestyle, replete with maximized hypergamy, short-term oriented thinking, and, of course, substantial promiscuity. Or, perhaps, when given the chance to take over the reins of a household, some women jump at that chance – irrespective of any demonstrated ability to carry such a load.

At the most base feral level, woman crave advantage and men crave an easier path to reward – sex, money, power, fame, etc.
I think a look at the way those at the bottom end of social-economic class tends to conduct themselves will amply bear this out. When welfare was introduced as a means of providing for poor women better than a husband could – and a way for the children of poor men to be provided for without the father having to labor – we see how both women and men responded.

As society becomes increasingly untethered from it’s moral under-pinnings and religious teachings, the pathologies of the underclass will simply continue in their upward-creep through the rest of society.

It can be yes Ton, you are right. But you are only half right. It is not the Marriage that is ruinous to men. It is the no-fault-divorce that she gets from the state that gives her all his things and future earnings that make marriage ruinous. Were it not for no-fault-divorce, she would have less power and more men might be inclined to marry.

Anyone who recommends men marry, especially if they recommend men marry single mom’s, is the enemy of men

You can GYOW. I don’t blame you ton. Its brutal out there. I wish that that were some way a man could KNOW FOR SURE (ahead of time) if a woman that agrees to marry him is doing it sincerely for a lifetime. Men don’t really care if that woman is getting all his assets in marriage after he is DEAD so long as he hangs in there until death do us part. Tragically, that doesn’t happen all the time.

Marriage is vanishing. Dr Helen Smith wrote a book about MGTOW and largely, everyone yawned. People don’t really care Ton (not yet.) I think they should care but… were are just individuals.

Marriage is the most important decision a man will make. The Bible is full of warnings about bad marriages. Paul even states that it is better not to marry, if you can manage it. So while there can be great benefits to marriage, it’s obvious a bad marriage is worse than no marriage at all.

But, I’ve noticed it the church (much less society in general) no longer supports men who have strict standards for who they will marry. We should be supporting men (and women) who have high standards for a spouse, and help them keep to those standards.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that already has children (because, to be blunt, 99% of the time this is due to out of wedlock births or divorce).

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that is divorced.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that has an extensive sexual history.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he wants to marry a woman that believes in the Biblical idea of martial submission.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he wants to marry a woman that is attractive.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he wants to marry a woman who wants to have lots of children with him (and thus he’ll need to marry a woman that is fairly young so they’ll have time to have lots of children–not a woman over 30 whose most fertile years are long gone).

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that is overweight or in poor physical shape.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he wants to marry a woman that will stay home with the kids rather than pursue a career.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that does drugs.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he wants to marry a woman that has similar ideas about religion, life, etc. as he does.

It’s not unreasonable for a man to say he doesn’t want to marry a woman that can’t control her finances and who has run up a financial debt.

BUT…let a young man actually state that this (or something similar) is his list of what he wants in a wife, and he’s likely to be condemned by not only society at large, but his own church as being too narrow-minded and picky. He’ll be told that he should instead compromise, because “nobody is perfect.”

IMHO, our focus should be on men; on helping men develop strict standards for a wife and helping them stick to those standards.

@rmax, I assure you, there was no concerted effort by either of us to get Susan to close her comments. I don’t send her any traffic beyond the occasional link I might use to call her to the carpet or when she gets a mad-on about something I post.

You want to know the real reason she closed comments? Check out her blog redesign and commercialization. She has more web ads now than most commercial sites and can’t afford to lose an advertiser over some red pill commenters.

Aunt Giggles decided that she likes her cocoon better when she’s the only one talking. I can only imagine that she was spending more time editing, scrubbing and banning so many men who uncomfortably took her to the woodshed than she was, actually cutting and pasting cherry picked paragraphs from the latest studies she thinks back up her mission to build better Betas. Of course, turning off the comments was really only a formality and one I predicted would happen this year.

However, I don’t expect it will last long since her internet catharsis requires the affirmation of others (even if she has to edit their comments) and she’ll come to miss the positive strokes of the dozen or so regulars who account for the triple digit comment threads.

K, but you didn’t answer the question. What is the definition of abuse and where in the bible does it say so? Christians are making a big mistake by agreeing with feminists that all unwanted physical contact=abuse.

You are moving the goalposts and setting up a straw man. You started by denying the possibility of a husband abusing his wife:

Can someone show me where in the bible it says hitting your spouse is abuse? Because if it doesn’t I’m simply going to start responding with “it isn’t abuse.” The words racist, mysnogist, abuser, etc are quickly becoming meaningless to my generation.

I’m not saying “all unwanted physical contact=abuse”. I’m saying that just because feminists want to classify everything as abuse doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing. Ephesians 5 sets a high bar for husbands. A husband smacking his wife around isn’t consistent with how husbands are called to treat their wives.

Why is he saying anything? It’s not unreasonable for a man to keep his mouth shut about what he is looking for in a wife. It is no one else’s business. Everyone has a list, even women. But women have the good sense to shut-up about it.

As Brad Pitt said to Jonah Hill when he said they need to explain these moves: “Its a question you think we need to explain ourselves. DON’T. To ANYBODY.”

Also, there may be social stigma in a church for bachelors but not in society at large. For example: 50 years ago, a bachelor would be passed over for promotions in companies in favor of the married man. That no longer happens. Promotions are now merit based, not marital based.

@”A husband smacking his wife around isn’t consistent with how husbands are called to treat their wives.”
There is double standard here. If I remember correctly, women are quite often the initiaters of physical violence. In addition, how many men are divorce their wives over physical violence ?

@ @slwerner “underclass will simply continue in their upward-creep through the rest of society.”
Very well said. Then what happens ? I might be mistaken but it would appear that revolution would occur.

Our faith has been gutted in the same way as our marriages. When we join ourselves to Christ it is supposed to be our life. We die to self and live for Him. That is submission, the biblical definition. He loves us and laid His life down for us and gives us trials and obstacles for us to overcome and draw nearer to Him, because He loves us. He does not sugar-coat everything and treat us like spoiled rotten grandchildren because he loves us. When we behave as if He is the great sugar-Daddy in the sky we are setting Him up as an emasculated puppet, which He isn’t and never will be. We’re all due a reality check.

So this creeping easy believeism has naturally infected our marriages. If God gives us everything we want for low-down payment and low monthly payments and we can have everything we want right now, shouldn’t our marriages be as “easy”? Shouldn’t husbands (being a type of Christ) conform to the wife’s personal Jesus? And since we no longer submit to God and live sacrificially for Him, isn’t it only natural that everyone has forgotten what submission means?

Typically the path is missed right out of the gate. We’re are no longer telling new believers to DIE, tat does not comport with the “seeker sensitive” post-modern Rob Bell nonsense that is being sold as “belief”. While new husband hopefully understand that tying the knot means THEIR life (and often we can see that they don’t) we know for a fact that most women are not even hearing a whisper of “submit” or “obey” when being charged in the counseling or at the altar.

Egalitarianism is the Churchian version of the Cross-less Christian. Where everyone pretends that they are not sinner and that no sacrifice is required from either Jesus or the individual doing the repentance. No longer are their “living sacrifices”, now everyone is a perpetual victim with the never-ending binge of pity partying.

If I remember correctly, women are quite often the initiaters of physical violence.

A good man will not fight back with his wife physically when she batters him. That is why she does it, because she KNOWS she gets the last word (even if the word is her fist.) EIther way, she needs a therapist and probably medication. Any woman who hits her husband is at least Bi-Polar-1 and is probably BPD! So the man should take the beating once, find a counselor who will talk to him to get his wife “help” and then talk to a lawyer. Then go to his wife with the counselor and the lawyer (the carrot and the stick.) Force her to “change” if she wants to stay married.

In addition, how many men are divorce their wives over physical violence ?

I read blog after blog and article after article from married women begging their husbands for this, not “dregs.”
and the rest of your comment….

We are not on the same page. You are now referring exclusively to the bedroom. I was objecting to the idea that that leads to obedience and submission outside the bedroom, some sort of lasting solution.

There was a lengthy debate here between Dalrock and I (and a few others) about what you say here, in terms of submission. The debate was over the notion that women crave male leadership and authority. Specifically, Christian women. SSM chimed in that yes indeed women crave this. I too have read countless blogs and articles stating this and I remain unconvinced.

Maybe they crave this bedroom dominance, but no way no how does that translate out into daily activities in life.

1) Women that meet those standards will be attracted to men who espouse them.

2) As more men espouse high standards, it makes it easier for men with similar ideals to come together to support each other. Keeping things to yourself creates the illusion that you are the only person that feels the way, and thus makes it harder for an individual to stick to their principles under pressure.

3) As more men publicly state their standards, it will counteract the feminist meme that women should spend their youth pursing education/career/pleasure and put off marriage and family until their 30s. It will send the message to young women that should they decide to pursue the feminist meme that when they reach their 30s they won’t be considered fit for marriage by some percentage of men.

#2 is the important reason. Men need the help of other men to hold their ground.

There is double standard here. If I remember correctly, women are quite often the initiaters of physical violence. In addition, how many men are divorce their wives over physical violence ?

True, but what does it have to say to Dalrock’s point? Sure there is a double standard. Does that mitigate, then, the husbands responsibility to not do that? No. There is not conditionality on these things, they are vertical admonishments, not horizontal.

Maybe they crave this bedroom dominance, but no way no how does that translate out into daily activities in life.

Maybe, that’s what feminist say as well, in fact, feminists are adamant that there is no connection between submission in the bedroom and submission outside of the bedroom, the first is ok (sort of) the latter absolutely forbidden.

I also guess that normal (i.e., not feminist) women do not make the huge distinction between “inside the bedroom” and “outside the bedroom” that men do. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. You don’t demand her submission in the bedroom and can’t demand it outside of the bedroom.

In my article “People Like Us” I quote a comment suggesting that most submissive women do, in fact, connect the two, and only the “rarest” type do not.

1) Women that meet those standards will be attracted to men who espouse them.

We don’t have all the same standards.

You want the woman to be herself. You don’t want her to put up and act just to attract YOU.

2) As more men espouse high standards, it makes it easier for men with similar ideals to come together to support each other. Keeping things to yourself creates the illusion that you are the only person that feels the way, and thus makes it harder for an individual to stick to their principles under pressure.

High standards are fine. But NOT all men have similar ideals. Some men look for very different things when thinking about the woman they want to marry.

For me, my non-negotiable was intelligence. That was at the top of my list. I wanted to marry a very smart woman. I knew myself and I knew that (since I needed that marriage to last a lifetime) I needed a spouse that I could talk to that challenged me intellectually. That is NOT what all men want. Some value looks. Some value youth. Some value education. Some value religion. Some value how she was raised (what her mother and father were like.) Some value an absolute MASTER in the bedroom (not all women are good there.) Some value her earning power even! As men, we are all over the place and women already know this. So far be it for me to think that getting men together to support each other that we are all have the same ideals. We don’t. But that doesn’t mean as men we can’t stick to our principles. We should. And it also doesn’t mean we have to share all out lists with everyone. What you don’t want ‘J’, is a woman trying to BE something just to please you. You want her to be herself and if you love what you see, then (if she doesn’t know what you love about her) you’ll know it is sincere.

3) As more men publicly state their standards, it will counteract the feminist meme that women should spend their youth pursing education/career/pleasure and put off marriage and family until their 30s. It will send the message to young women that should they decide to pursue the feminist meme that when they reach their 30s they won’t be considered fit for marriage by some percentage of men.

Some Christian men want the educated career girl. Some Christian men want the older woman. Not all, but some.

If you consider that women are at some primal level hardwired to look toward men for protection (there is nothing more vulnerable than a pregnant woman, much less one that is also caring for several children), then that list makes sense. For most of human history the world was a very dangerous place. Men needed those qualities to survive, and women needed to hook up with men who had those qualities to survive.

Few women would write out that list if asked “what do you want in a man,” but at a deeper level they desire those qualities in a man.

Ephesians 5;18-21 speaks of corporate worship and fellowship and end with the instruction;:submitting to one another in the Fear of God” That is ‘mutual submission’ is it not? To get your logic correct, try thinking about all relationships like a contract. Jesus and you have a contract. God will do certain things/you do certain things. Notice how ‘responsibity’ exist only after the contract is made. If a man is married, he is the HEAD of his wife by decree of God, just as Christ is HEAD of the church by decree of God. The behavior of the wife or the church does not change that. The married man has signed a contract with his wife and has a duty(reponsibility) to preform.An honorable man will keep his word, even when the other does not. The church used to be honorable and advocate that contracts be upheld. It no longer does. The church has become a business, like Susan’s website, and can’t afford to alienate ‘clients’. Men are on their own in this world,except for God and his power/authority. Honor your contract with God and let Him lead you to a solution. That would be a miracle.

Well I think so. I also think that a man’s “standards” change over time. I didn’t always value intelligence in women. I discovered that about myself only AFTER being involved with women who were not intelligent. Thank goodness I did not marry them.

Wouldn’t all Godly man seeking a Godly marriage have similar standards? Similar enough to band together?

They can band together (surely) and should. The principles are what is important and we ALL have standards (even if they are not similar.)

If we go to the gospel of St. Luke, we see as the example of a man who gains forgivenessas the man who is standing in the temple beating his breast and asking forgiveness of the Lord.

So, then going to Ephesians verse where a man is supposed to love his wife as his own body, wouldn’t that same man be cheating his wife if he didn’t beat her?

I’m not saying that every man should beat his wife… but when one compares the verses presented in scripture it would be good not to rule it completely out. Quite the contrary, it appears. Perhaps, a rule of thumb?

You are moving the goalposts and setting up a straw man. You started by denying the possibility of a husband abusing his wife:

Can someone show me where in the bible it says hitting your spouse is abuse? Because if it doesn’t I’m simply going to start responding with “it isn’t abuse.” The words racist, mysnogist, abuser, etc are quickly becoming meaningless to my generation.

I’m not saying “all unwanted physical contact=abuse”. I’m saying that just because feminists want to classify everything as abuse doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing. Ephesians 5 sets a high bar for husbands. A husband smacking his wife around isn’t consistent with how husbands are called to treat their wives.
~Dalrock

I never denied the possibity of a husband abusing his wife, there is a big difference between hitting someone and beating them senseless with a baseball bat. We are in agreement, there is such a thing as abuse.

But if the frame of the feminist is- the bible is abusive and sexist, then the correct tactic is agree and amplify. Yes the bible teaches a man can “rape” his wife whenever he wants. Yes, the bible teaches you can make unwanted physical contact with your wife,etc.

I am glad you don’t fall into this camp (unwanted physical contact), but most feminists and many False Christians do. Regarding Ephesians 5, we must have a different reading of it. Read the Ann Barnhardt piece I recommended, not everything that causes physical pain is to our detriment. And the word smacking implies both frequency (Time) and repetition, rather than an event that occurs perhaps once in a one year period. Much like Christ one time making of a whip assaulting Jews as he overturned money tables.

There is no wife by law. Only pieces of ass to fuck as booty calls.
Ton
I like how you comment straight and hard to the point. I like to color my stuff.

Dalrock, The one DV is wrong and there is no need for it but I will say in this world no man should ever allow a woman o hit him ever. A man will be charged with DV and at that point his life is over. A woman hits you your life over right there and letting it go will not restore your life. You beat her ass until the evidence looks like attempted murder by beating. I have already told my 6 at the time year old son to never not hit a girl if she hits him. My 12 year old daughter told me her 6th grade teacher said the same thing to his class never play that “don’t hit a girl” game when a female uses violence. I’ll go as far as being a 68 year old man going over to my sons house to shoot his wife to make sure he takes no shit. (he’ll never know it) I’ve already told my oldest daughter that easiest way to be beaten or killed by her husband or boyfriend is to hit him.
As the original post by Dalrocks states by law there is no marriage. No man is in headship of any marriage. Any marriage that is happy and Christian is by default of a woman with full power and control over the house hold submitting. A woman’s submission in todays world truly is because she doesn’t have to at all on any level. Not even the church she goes to encourages it.

Everyone stop. Dalrock was very precise what he was talking about (in headship) and everyone is missing it. His patience with everyone here is incredible. Look here….

My minister once told me – the women were seperate from the men. One side of chapel male – one side all female. Apparently the women would shout out to their husbands for answers on queries. I personally don’t believe that though (who would shout out in church?) But seriously… let’s be honest, the writer of this letter is obviously abusing women. Unfortunately, that is common in churches especially back in those days!

and then this…

Hmm, well excuse me but I will not hear this. Christ said love you neighbour. He did not say “34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.” Christ said “come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will grant you peace.” How ever he did not say “Women are second rate and should be submissive even if their husbands batter and abuse them. Christ clear single message was; LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS THE FATHER LOVES YOU! He would never say to women “be submissive”. Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands. Think before you say so little on a very sensitive subject.

It is obvious that Zundrah’s prime directive is NOT to allow any Christian man “headship” over her, and that any woman that does must CERTAINLY be being physically abused by her husband. Afterall, what other reason (other than physical abuse) could a wife POSSIBLY have to allow that man “headship”? None that Zundrah could see. And because she is a woman and was getting very “emotional” when cornered with logic about “headship” people didn’t challenge her. They gave up on her because it was no use, logic was not getting into that thick skull of hers.

In her mind, submitting to your husbands spiritual headship = spousal abuse. They are one and the same. She sees no difference. And thus the purpose for this thread. It is not about men trying to find excuses in their King James Bible to hit their wives.

The one
The whole abuse thing is just to make sure women run the house hold. The little details you are arguing mean nothing. Grabbing a shirt collar, standing in a door way, blocking her from hitting you is all that is needed for the law to come in and assert her authority. There is no wife and there is no Christian family BY LAW. Nothing we say or juggle around with language and bible verses and amens and prayers is going to change it. It can be simulated with a wife submitting while she is “happy” but she is head of the household. The local DA will tell you that and so will the local preacher.

@innocentbystanderboston “would shout out to their husbands for answers on queries. I personally don’t believe that though (who would shout out in church?)”

Permit me to note – your reference point is from a Western Evangelical laity church is based in paganism.
“Synagogues” of the NT is based in Judaism. In synagogue, men would sit on one side and women on the other with a partition running down the center to avoid distraction and “wandering eyes”. This practice is still present today in many strict orthodox synagogues”
Many practices that Paul institutes in the NT were a carryover from Judaism with some minor adjustments. These were minor adjustments quite radical beyond the understanding of todays Christians. This included eating/interacting w/ Gentiles, Kosher, men not wearing headcovers (this is a sensation), circumcision etc.
While most of the Hebrew men/women were quite familiar with the synagogue procedures, the newly added gentiles were not. Hebrew women are trained to be submissive which is a direct contradiction of gentiles women who worshiped in pagan temples. Hence the many rules Peter & Paul laid down for the assemblies as well as husband/wives in the epistles.

He would never say to women “be submissive”. Submission is what a dog does when you kick it! Not women of eve that God made with his own divine and loving hands.

It is in the feminist definition of “submission” where their improper definition truly lies. They have re-framed dominion as abuse and submission as pure evidence of abuse. It is no such thing. No atheist would define the submissive in a BDSM relationship as inferior or “abused”, yet the feminist continue to willfully define female submission to male headship of a household as abuse.

It is THAT definition that is incorrect and must be exposed as such. Dominance IS NOT ABUSE. Submission IS NOT VICTIMHOOD.

Do we need to make more clear that there are several types of ‘single’ women with children who may be looking for a marriage partner. The most common will be
The woman who has had one or more children conceived outside marriage;
The woman who has biblically divorced her former husband;
The woman who has frivorced her former husband; and
The widow.

The widow will hopefully be chaste and have been faithful to her husband, but seeking the companionship of marriage and is likely worthy of marriage.

The woman who has biblically divorced her former husband would be worth considering as a wife, so long as one can ascertain the facts behind her divorce and how she conducts herself.

The other two categories can be both subdivided into those who claimed to be Christian before they had children and/or divorced and those who have become Christian since. The former subcategories are probably not worth considering as potential wives because there is no indication of a leopard even trying to change its spots. Those who claim to have become Christian since they have had their children or divorce need careful checking out by any man before he considers seriously committing himself to them.

The other categories also need checking out. Prior to my marriage, I was seeing a woman who was in the process of divorcing her husband because she had caught him in bed with another woman. So far so good, in that she had a biblical reason for her divorce. Two aspects of her character made me decide that she was not marriage material for me: she was out with me one night and we met her husband, who appeared to be repentant and wanted her back but her attitude to him was not only cold, which I could understand, but unnecessarily hurtful, and secondly she offered to let me ‘try before you buy’. Both of these factors made me realise that her Christianity was not as sincere as she would have had me believe.

Overall, the more I have read the comments here, the more I believe that the idea of serious pre-marital counselling, as suggested by Mike and Harriet McManus of marriagesavers.org is required, and even more especially in the cases where one or both of the parties has been married previously. I found it interesting that they expect that at least 10% of all proposed marriages will be cancelled as a result of the counselling.

Those who mentioned Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend did not mention one important aspect of the book. I can only apply boundaries to myself. I cannot say to someone else that they must change their behaviour. All I can say is that i find this or that sort of behaviour unacceptable, and if they use it in my presence, I will remove myself from that presence.

This is why I married a foreign woman and why I recommend it. Because when you have a sister/cousin living outside the US who is being beaten for real, then you are damn appreciative that all your husband does is raise his voice. But when your sister/cousin is divorced with cash and prizes, then you are looking to do the same.

The law means nothing. It is illegal to smoke week, who does that stop? Women compare themselves and act based on their immediate circle, marry an American at your own peril.

What Stingray described is terrifying because it means that, even if a man does everything right and hits the jackpot — finds a woman who wants to be submissive, and makes of himself a solid head of the household — he could still be accused of abuse if the women and manginas around her take her submission as a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.

For instance, I used to watch The Amazing Race (two person teams racing around the world). Every time they’d have a Christian couple who would say something about the man being the leader, the fan forums would be overwhelmed with people saying he probably beats her at home. That’s all it took — one statement about male headship, even if the woman was the one saying it — to provide proof that she was a punching bag and he was a domineering ass.

It may not be possible yet for a man to be charged with abuse by third parties if his wife won’t cooperate and there’s no clear physical evidence. But that’s not for lack of desire on the part of feminists.

Cail….re Amazing Race….just wow. I suppose I am surprised because of the forum in which that happened. But its my shortcoming to have been surprised. I should never be surprised at what offends people or makes them feel their cause is threatened.

In this case its even worse, its not their cause, its their potential cause. They want the abuse card available, and they want lots of cover in the form of other women saying they were abused. This way when she says she is abused she has the full force of a huge pile of BS, not just some left on the street after a parade

Elspeth….same to your scenario but its expected there. Not on a reality show where women seem to be wearing buttons and running into walls with them to say they were pushed

Ephesians 5;18-21 speaks of corporate worship and fellowship and end with the instruction;:submitting to one another in the Fear of God” That is ‘mutual submission’ is it not? To get your logic correct, try thinking about all relationships like a contract. Jesus and you have a contract. God will do certain things/you do certain things. Notice how ‘responsibity’ exist only after the contract is made. If a man is married, he is the HEAD of his wife by decree of God, just as Christ is HEAD of the church by decree of God. The behavior of the wife or the church does not change that. The married man has signed a contract with his wife and has a duty(reponsibility) to preform.An honorable man will keep his word, even when the other does not. The church used to be honorable and advocate that contracts be upheld. It no longer does. The church has become a business, like Susan’s website, and can’t afford to alienate ‘clients’. Men are on their own in this world,except for God and his power/authority. Honor your contract with God and let Him lead you to a solution. That would be a miracle.

Bobbye, bless you and your naive faith. And trust me that I know what that is suggesting that I am saying. It would lead us into a discourse of worldly vs kingdom. You keep, however,stating cause and effect that lacks effect. The cause you list is righteous and right. You presume the effect. This is one of myriad ways the church gets around holding women accountable for anything.

Its not an either/or. Its not that once men begin to holds women accountable they do so in lieu of holding themselves accountable. If man is to make any effort towards marriage ordered rightly, it must include all of what you say, plus similar bold proclamations to women, by men and women. He is not released from his duty by her misbehavior. Thats not the point. Isolate and admonish each gender, then maybe the way you write would be more effective

One thing I’ve yet to witness is a woman living up to her end of a bargain.

We don’t need pre marriage counseling, which is basically bargaining. We need a legal system/ social order which ensures women face horrible consequences for having kids out of wedlock, infidelity, denying a husband sex, running up debt, being disrespectful etc etc. Ending domestic violence laws would be infinitely more effective then pre marriage counseling

Women react to tingles and fear ( which gives them the tingles). One thing men must do is stop thinking of women as rational, moral etc etc. Pre marriage counseling is another form of putting them on a pedestal, unless it’s to the effect of if you deny me sex three nights in a row without a doctor’s note you’re on the streets

Ton
Spoken like a true warrior that understands reality.
The One
Marrying a foreign woman is a defensive tactic that depends on blissful ignorance. The family law is still in place. Just as Elspeth discribed above others will see her well behaved and put in her head she is being abused. Just as the serpent told Eve walking around in the garden of Eden she could get a better deal defying God. Live well and enjoy what yu have but do not delude yourself into thinking you have found the perfect way. You have only reduced the risk for a while. Not here to knock you just speaking as friend to another man living in the world of misandry.
I have come to the conclusion and want all men to understand women have no agency and as Ton stated tingles and fear are all women need and want. It is men that are projecting all of this rationality on to women. Women don’t even have the capacity to love ,they gina tingle. Since women vote they need to fear and panic their way into wickedly and selfishly removing the laws of misandry in their own selfish interest in the endless pursuit gina tingling hypergamy. Have faith in the true nature of women they kill a child, suck a serial killers dick and divorce a faithful man that loves them if they think it is in their selfish interest. (do not apply the slightest hint of logic to that or you are doomed)
There are the white knight pussy worshippers, The delusionist that still think there is a way to find the right one. And there are the warriors that know what needs to be done and it has nothing to do per say with women. Changing the law as any warfare looks ugly. And churchians playing conservative Christians don’t want to get their souls dirty.

In Your Opinion that’s “trolling”, “joking” or “obtuse”, but you’re just saying that because I’m bringing up a pointed example of a physical relationship.

When some brings up an example as of a beating in a relationship you get defensive and change the subject to imply that the person asking may be the problem and not the issue being questioned.

It is better to discuss understanding of why people may do things that make others uncomfortable in marriage before things are actually working themselves out.

@Dalrock, doesn’t it seem that there are so many ways that the scriptures seem to intersect, sometimes implying ways that might make us uncomfortable, especially with the amount of public limelight that is put onto marriage these days?

In catholic tradition, beating oneself is considered a “mortification” and is supposed to subdue the body. Likewise, is fasting considered one. How might a 21st century feminist react if a husband or father encouraged fasting, as the family’s spiritual head? Might it be viewed similarly to non-injurous hitting? It is a type of discipline…

Also, it’s important to keep the mystical component in the sacrament of marriage – though many would want, to the institution’s detriment, a cold dissection in the courtroom. That would be marriage at its weakest. It’s where it would be if the emasculators you quoted in the O.P. got everything they asked for.

I have to strongly disagree. It is your choice whatever you take part in mainstream American culture or rather embrace a subculture.

There is no TV in my house. We read books and watch old movies. The last movie we watched is Heaven knows, Mr Allison and my wife is currently reading Anna Karenina. We plan to homeschool our kids so while my wife works in a small private business (where the owner has an arraigned marriage!), she has 0 experience with evil corporate culture. For church we either go to the Latin mass or to a Spanish Pentecostal church. I speak neither Latin nor Spanish, but I know that is where old school Christians are so I go. Her family loves I am embracing Spanish culture.

In addition it’s very easy to play the us vs them card. Look at Soloman’s comment, he will basically ignore whatever a Catholic says because they pray to statues. Likewise my wife ignores whatever American women say because they are cheating whores.

TzeTze Anopheles
Very interesting. I wish every man in the west had a chance to see that. The economy is never coming back. With the US going socialist the west is with out hope and will fall into the European style of classes. The US with it’s constitution an aberration to begin with will never happen again.

I have mostly read the Scriptures. Believe what you will. Perhaps you could tell me the church I am supposedly a leader in so I could consider attending there. I am currently having trouble finding one that really believes the Scriptures (including the true nature of God) as well as having a strong, proper Biblical pastor.

It is funny that this is the only place I would be accused of being a white knight or mangina. Certainly not likely to be uttered elsewhere. Participating where I do has helped me learn more to blow off idiots even more. You can be slammed here if you don’t toe the line and I never was much good at that, whatever line I was supposed to toe.

God’s line is the only one I seek to toe now.

I would challenge anyone to note specifically where I said that anyone should marry anyone specific. Exactly what have I said that was inconsistent with the Scriptures? If I have, show me and I will gladly change if I agree with your use of them. They are the guidance in my life, not some varying idea of men that can continuously shift.

Throwing insults at the drop of a hat and dropping your hat to throw an insult may make the writer feel better, but it does little of value.

Which of you addressed the key principle of grace and forgiveness in the Scriptures? You are reframing things just as much as a feminist would. Anyone can be forgiven anything, except a life-long rejection of Jesus. That doesn’t mean they will get all the good things they could have had (including a good marriage), but they can definitely be forgiven.

The attitude put forth here is very similar to the Pharisees of old it seems. None of this “neither do I condemn you” and “go forth and sin no more” example. I think I will follow Jesus way rather than yours.

Women’s Suffrage DOES destroy Democracy. It destroys it through loose fiscal policy and never-ending needless legislation. This is what happens when you allow a gender that does not understand cause-and-effect to vote solely with their emotions.

Unfortunately, even if women gave men their Patriarchy back, I don’t think men in our country would take it. They are beaten down, fragements of what they once were. If you asked your average American man, he probably doesn’t even know what Women’s Suffrage is.

slwerner I’ll chime in and say that what I take as the point is that when given the opportunity to be freed from having to take on the demanding burden of headship – by simply letting a wife try to take on the job – some portion of men will be all too happy to do so.

It is important to understand the premises that underly people’s actions, although it can be difficult to do so due to our own, unexamined, unspoken premises.

Think about a business partnership, a small manufacturer owned and operated by Joe and Moe. Suppose that they employ a dozen or so people who take various raw materials and use them to create a small product line that is sold on the open market. Joe and Moe are both adult men, and they get along, they have a common goal to make money selling a good product, and in order to accomplish this goal they have to work as a team.

Suppose that Joe decides he’s better suited to supervising the employees, modifying the product to suit a new customer, supervising the raw material inventory & the payroll clerk, while Moe is in charge of sales, advertising, maintaining a good relationship with customers, hiring new employees, keeping track of competitors. Now, one day, Joe meets with Moe and states that the bills are not getting paid – the accounts payable ledger is a mess & the company is owed a substantial amount of money. Joe and Moe work out an arrangement where Joe will take over supervision of the bookkeeper & the billing, while Moe will step back from that area of responsibility. Or Moe decides that since he spends much of his day outside the business, it doesn’t make sense for him to do the hiring when Joe has a better handle on the day to day labor needs of the company. Or Joe finds that his redesigns of product are not working as well as the should, and that they need to hire someone to help him with this. These may be discussions with some friction, but ultimately two adult men are going to reach an agreement on the best way to keep the business profitable, in part because they are equals in the partnership. Each partner in the firm assumes the other is competent, and there is no need to test skills or ability. There is no hidden agenda involved.

Joe isn’t likely to feel that Moe is dumping all the inside work on him while having fun in the outside world, and Moe is probably not going to feel that he’s doing all the work in the partnership while Joe coasts in the shop. This is because Joe and Moe are both men, with similar premises underlying their approach to the business partnership. They are there to make money; that means keeping long term commitments from customers, providing a valuable service, taking care of their employees & modernizing tools & techniques as needed in order to remain competitive. They are business partners. Joe isn’t likely to worry that Moe will leave for another company. Moe isn’t likely to worry that Joe is sneaking off to other companies when he’s out of town.

The equalitarian partnership model works well in a business, when partners (men and/or women) can agree on division of responsibility and authority. Joe won’t suddenly decide to start making cold calls on customers behind Moe’s back, and Moe isn’t going to stride into the warehouse and start ordering more raw materials than are needed, just because he can. It wouldn’t make sense in the business model.

We, as men and women in this culture, have been sold the equalitarian partnership model as the ideal for marriage and family. Because (all together, now) men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies. In the equalitarian partnership model, it makes no difference who stays home with the children, so long as an adult is present. Heck, one can even hire a college student or an illegal alien, it makes no difference because all adults are interchangeable. And this error is so embedded in the wider culture it is an unconscious, and therefore unquestioned, premise. As I’ve pointed out before, we all swim in feminism. It takes deliberate effort to not think in feminist ways.

So the man in a marriage has no reason to object, if his wife decides that he’s not raising the children correctly & she’s just going to have to take over all tasks in the home relating to that. Heck, that just frees him to spend more time outside the house working for money. Similarly, he has no logical reason to object if she decides that really she can make more money than he can, and he should stay home with the children & push them around the mall every day in a stroller – because “he” and “she” are totally interchangeable, once the act of pregnancy & birth is completed. A wife has no logical reason to object if he decides that she should work in an office all day and he should stay home with the infants and toddlers – interchangeable, y’know, so long as the work is getting done. And any emotions that may arise – her yearning to be with the children all day, his desire to “go and do”, these are not relevant to the tasks at hand. Because “Mr. Mom” and “Mom” are interchangeable, and “breadwinner” is a sex-neutral label.

Because “everyone knows it is so”, it is “common knowledge”, unless a man or women actively questions the premise.

Given this premise, and given the premise that strong, independent wimmen know more about life, the universe and everything than the overgrown boys that they put up with, it is logically consistent that women should run households. It is logically consistent that a woman’s authority should increase, whenever she deems it, and at the same time a man’s responsibility should also increase. If the man looks at his wife as someone who thinks the same manner he does, except for plumbing issues, then her monthly emotional cycle seems to be more caprice or even some form of subtle treachery than a normal part of life. If the woman looks at her husband as someone who emotes in the same manner she does, then he’s going to seem cold and distant at times, inscrutable and not possible to understand. Or perhaps just like a kind of machine, impossible to harm, or hurt, or offend…

Once the initial attraction begins to fade, especially after children, then both man and woman will become increasingly frustrated, unhappy, and difficult to live with. Because their lives are not working, according to the equalitarian partnership model, someone must be failing to do right. And since each of them can look at what they are doing, and find it to be appropriate under the model, it must be the other person’s fault. Because it couldn’t be that the underlying premise of equalitarian partnership is flawed – “everyone knows” it is true, right? And so, because he is failing her fitness tests, she unconsciously will double down on them. And so, because her fitness tests are occurring more often and with more intensity, he will unconsciously decide that she’s utterly fickle and thus never to be trusted. The disintegration of the equalitarian partnership is well under way, and all the advice they can get – whether from secular counselors or family or church – will simply reinforce the wrongheadedness that they are both wrapped around. What’s more, thanks to the pedestalization of women as “more loving, more caring, more empathic, unselfish”, etc. much of the advice will just boil down to “You, man, are not doing what she tells you to do. Shut up and do what you are told”, which can only accelerate the destruction.

It is an axiom of logic that an argument based upon a flawed premise cannot have a meaningful conclusion. It’s so flawed, it’s not even wrong. That is the state of male – female relations, especially marriage, in the West at this point in time – the equalitarian partnership model is based on the Rousseauian “blank slate” insanity that leads to the feminist insanity of “men and women are just the same except women can have babies”. The churchian, pseudo-Victorian “women good, men bad” pedestalization premise fits nicely in with this to denigrate men in every way, while exalting women far beyond anything appropriate to a mere human.

To summarize: given the flawed premise that most men and women are carrying around in their heads, the insanity of feminism, it is no surprise that men are always willing to give way to any demand a wife may make. They’ve been trained to do so from childhood. They are just doing what everyone told them to do. And the women,- taught to be strong, independent, don’t take no crap from no one – are doing what they have been trained as wel. And so no one is happy, both are increasingly miserable, and outside of the androsphere no one can explain why.

Deti has outlined, in various fora, the details of what this looks like, especially to men, and we all know where it leads.

Are you not acting like an old Pharisee for refusing to forgive the GBFM for agreeing with Moses and Jesus who came to fulfill the law?

Can you not please forgive the Men of the world for loving Honor and God over butt and gina tingelzlzlzzozo?

Can you please, just once, find it in your hardened Pharisee’s heart to please, please forgive the Men of the world for loving Honor and God and seeking to serve Moses and Jesus Christ over a woman’s base butt and gina tingelzlzlzzozo and lust for the lostsass cockas Serpent in Genesis?

Dear BradA, Christ forgives us for following His Teachings. Why can’t you?

Do you not consider yourself a Christian?

It is not too late, BradA. There is still time for you to be saved by forgiving Men for honoring the tenets of Christ and the Bible instead of the bastards created by women’s buytt and gina tingellzlzzozzloz.

Lots of selection bias over at CAF, with many, many posters in the divorced/annulled/remarried camps with a reflexive attitude about certain trigger topics such as this one and anyone who dare question the church’s (US) liberal approach to annulments.

I post a lot there albeit sporadically and it really is like teaching a pig to sing.

With a male pill we can get that number to 3 out of 5. a male pill will also make it more likely only married women have children. When the tipping point comes I will be pushing feminism like crazy. Encouraging all women to rebellion.

For all the Christians here, not a lot of people read the bible, I’m guessing. To those that think Jesus would never be violent, I’m QUITE sure you’ve never read the bible (or at least, certain passages).

Two passages come to mind. First, he gets SO pissed off at the moneychangers at the temple, he goes and fashions a “whip”. If memory serves me correctly, the greek word actually means more along the lines of a cat-o-nine tails. He then takes that whip, and beats the moneychangers, and overturns their tables. Doesn’t sound like a 100% pacifist to me.

Second, in Revelations, when he returns, he slaughters so many people that blood is said to run for something like 100 miles to the depth of a horse’s bridle. Some “nice guy” Jesus. He’s not described as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” for nothing, people.

Now, InnocentBystanderBoston seems to think that men should marry these sluts because they are repentant. No, they aren’t. Here is how you can prove it. You would be AMAZED what women will tell you, when they think you are non-judgmental. How many ONS they’ve had, how many orgies they’ve had, how many guys have penetrated them at the same time, etc., etc.

Get in good with one of these sluts and ask her “If you could go back, and change anything and everything about your life, what would you change?” You’ll find they all answer the same way: “I wouldn’t change anything, because my ‘mistakes’ have made me the person I am today!”

Really want the knife to drive the red pill deeper for you? If they are a single mother, ask them if they would go back and change who the father of their children are. Say, maybe, “If you could go back, would you have waited until a great guy came along, and had children with him, instead?” I really, really, really wish I could be a fly on the wall at the conversation. Haha!

I’m almost to the point where I don’t think women are even capable of learning cause and effect, except under the direct tutelage of a man. Even then, they don’t grasp the concept behind it, just whatever instance it is being applied to.

Can any man amongst us not think of a thousand things they would go back and change in their life, if they had that opportunity?

I’ve taken a young chick under my wing. She’s 23, and VERY good looking. She was a hard 9, but she’s gained a few pounds, so she’s down to an 8. We’ve become good friends, and I use her as my social proof. 🙂 Anyway, during one of our talks, I told her that by sleeping around a lot, she would lower the quality of man she could get to eventually marry. She didn’t believe me, and went and bitched about it to my nephew. (Who is also her buddy. Truth in advertising: Her family is a friend of our family.) He agreed with me, and she didn’t like it one bit. Tell you what she DID do though. Quit sleeping around so much. Apparently, no one had ever told her this truth before, and she wants to be married and have kids. My point is, you wouldn’t BELIEVE what she and some of her friends have told me. And you’d never suspect it.

Truthfully, even knowing what I have told her, I don’t think she regrets anything. If SHE can’t look back and say “I wish I wouldn’t have done those things”, how much more difficult with more difficult and jaded women?

InnocentBystanderBoston, I’ve been around a long time in the ‘sphere. Let me tell you the #1 reason that men looking for a relationship should absolutely NOT have anything to do with a used up slut. THAT MAN WILL PAY FOR THE “SINS” AND SHORTCOMINGS OF ALL THOSE OTHER MEN, WHILE HELD UP TO THE BEST PARTS OF EACH ONE. He’ll be competing, not against any single individual, but against a composite “superman”. Since I’m rather fond of these whores (yeah, yeah, I know…), I speak from experience. They are, in the parlance of some of the feminine versions of the ‘sphere, “damaged beyond repair”. God MIGHT fix them, but certainly no man will be able to. You, and any other man, ignores this at his own peril.

“given the flawed premise that most men and women are carrying around in their heads, the insanity of feminism, it is no surprise that men are always willing to give way to any demand a wife may make. They’ve been trained to do so from childhood. They are just doing what everyone told them to do. And the women,- taught to be strong, independent, don’t take no crap from no one – are doing what they have been trained as wel. And so no one is happy, both are increasingly miserable, and outside of the androsphere no one can explain why.”

And here’s what it looks like for men: From his earliest memories, his is a life of rules and of pleasing the women around him, especially his mother. Go here. Sit there. Be quiet. Don’t talk. Don’t yell or scream. Don’t run. Don’t do that. Don’t touch that. Be nice.

In school it’s much the same: sit down. Shut up. Learn it this way. Don’t talk. Don’t run. Don’t touch that. Don’t say that. Don’t do that. Do this. Don’t play that way. Be nice. Share with the girl. The girl wants that, so you have to give it to her. This is the Truth: Girls and boys are exactly the same and girls can do everything you boys can do. Girls think like boys, act like boys, play and learn like boys. Don’t touch girls. Your sexuality is bad, evil, base, impure, and predatory. Girls’ sexuality is good, pure, caring and loving.

Same thing at church: Good Church Girls don’t have premarital sex. If good church girls are having sex it is because they were raped or tricked into it. I don’t care what anyone else is telling you about people having sex. I don’t care about those scumbags having sex with the girls. The girls are stupid for having sex with those men and the men are raping them or tricking them into it. The girls don’t actually WANT to have sex with those guys. If you have sex with a girl, then you’re a scumbag. And if you WANT to have sex with a girl, then you’re a rapist and a sexist and a sexual predator and you’re going to hell. Sex is bad. You must not have sex until you’re married; and then when you get married we expect you to have the sexual skills of a male pornstar. If you looked at a girl with lust in your heart, then you have committed adultery and you’re going to hell. If you masturbated you must have lusted and you spilled the seed and have committed a mortal sin and you’re going to hell.

At college: Women can do anything they want, anywhere they want, anytime they want. She can have sex with anyone she wants anytime, anywhere, and no one has any right to judge her. If you have sex with her, you must make sure you have clear verbal permission for every step of the process. If you don’t, you have raped her, especially if she unilaterally decides that she didn’t like it. If you look at a girl for too long, or you ask out a girl who you like but who doesn’t like you, or if you call a girl a “girl”, you are guilty of sexual harassment. Remember that sexual harassment, boys and young men, is this: (1) any sexual conduct by unattractive men; and (2) any conduct by anyone that any one woman doesn’t like. You just need to be more attractive. The onus is on you to not be creepy. And you need to do that by being nice and being yourself. Don’t be creepy, defined as “whatever a woman decides at that moment that she doesn’t like”. If a woman wants it, you MUST give it to her. If a girl agrees to date you, you MUST do what she wants, when she wants, where and how she wants. You exist to furnish yourself for her ends and purposes.

At work: Don’t you DARE ask out any woman at work! Don’t look at them, don’t touch them. Don’t say she looks good, because that means you’re putting the moves on her! Don’t say she looks nice because then you’re implying that on other days she doesn’t look nice! Don’t say you like the way she looks because then you’re implying that some other girl who overheard the compliment doesn’t look as good! It’s all sexual harassment! If you ask out any woman at work, and she says no, you must never ever ever even address that woman ever again.

In dating: You must give her everything she wants. Relationships are all about what she wants. When she wants to marry, you get engaged because it’s what she wants. Your job/career exists to serve her. Your body exists to serve her. You exist to serve her. You are a means to an end, a supporting player in the ongoing story of her life. Your ‘reward’ is sex (when she feels like it) and the knowledge that you made her happy.

By coincidence I was just listening to that well known song as performed by your Lesley Gore: You don’t own me. It was written, of course, by two men, so perhaps the message is the very opposite of the pro Betty Friedan stance it is supposed to have. This, you will recall, is how it goes:

‘You don’t own me
I’m not one of your many toys.
You don’t own me
Don’t say I can’t go out with other boys.
Don’t tell me what to do and
Don’t tell me what to say and
Please when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display’.

So be it: and in like manner she should not be shocked or complain when her boyfriend treats her to pump and dump.

It reminds me that a few years ago, in the bar one Friday night, a youngish lady of my acquaintance asked me to take her home (later) but within a minute of doing so was accusing me of sexually harassing her. Now, I think she should make her mind up, which it is; whether I am sufficiently desirable to have casual sex with later, or whether I need to be removed by the police (which was her threat). With that level of inconsistency it is clear that women (whether they like it or not) would perhaps be better off being told exactly what to do, though only a Husband or Father can and should be able to do that. My threatening acquaintance of a few years ago is still single and now receiving IVF treatment. Isn’t female choice wonderful and empowering. 🙂 🙂 🙂

From birth: Ooooh, look at the pretty girl! Sugar and spice and everything nice. We must take care of our fragile flower, our delicate little gumdrop. She will be pink and white and pure and pretty and perfect. She is to be clean at all times, never let her get dirty or play with anything the least bit contaminated. She is smart and beautiful and kind and perfect. She is daddy’s little girl, his pride and joy; and mommy’s greatest accomplishment (aside from her advertising/Biglaw/Bigmedicine/Bigpharma/Bigaccounting job).

In school: You can do everything a boy can do; in fact you can do most things better. You need to get yourself ready to get good grades and get into college so you can make money and live a fabulous life. You know what they say, “Girls go to college to get more knowledge; boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider”. You can’t count on a boy. They just want to have sex with you. And the times when you do need a man are just for brute strength, for lifting and moving things. In fact it’s a boy’s DUTY to move and lift heavy things for girls.

In church: You are God’s Special Princess; a Daughter of the King. God knows the thoughts and plans he has for you; plans to prosper you and give you a future. He will bless you and enlarge your territory. He will give you a Perfect Man and you will know he is The One because he meets every. Single. One. Of your 463 bullet point checklist for what you need in a man. If he fails even one of those tests, you will know he is not The One. Premarital sex is bad, but if you do it we know it’s not your fault. We know you were tricked into it. We know he raped you because you didn’t like it and it didn’t feel good. We know you want to get married and have babies and have daddies for your babies; because, you know, that’s what men are for: To make money and support you and be daddies for your babies. Divorce is bad, unless he does things like make you account for money you spend or he yells at you because he had a bad day at work or he wants you to have sex with him or is otherwise mean to you. And if he looks at porn, it’s divorce time, because him looking at porn is adultery.

And if you were a slut and are coming back to church, we get it. We understand. We know you just wanted a man all along; but no one told you that the way you’re supposed to get one is to come here to church. Now come here and pray this prayer and – PRESTO – you’re good as new, a “born again virgin”. You’re all ready now to get married and be a wife and mother. (But, look, if you still need to have sex every so often, no one will really say much about it, just do your best not to advertise it, K?)

In College: Time for you to get ready to get your degrees in Women’s Studies or Basketweaving or PR or HR. You need to get ready for a lifetime of work. You can’t count on a man. Men die. Men cheat. Men leave you. Men lose jobs. Men get injured. Men go nuts and then go on disability. Things happen. You might get divorced. You might become a widow. You might be married to a deadbeat. You need something to fall back on. So you go grrrrrrl and get your degree! In the meantime, you’re free to have as much sex as you want with any men you want. Maybe you’ll get a boyfriend or two; maybe not. Doesn’t matter anyway, because no matter how many men you have sex with you’ll still be able to get married no problem when you’re 30 … or 35,,, er 40. Besides, we have everything you need: free condoms, free birth control pills, free health care, free topical acyclovir to treat that herpes lesion; and free abortion services to take care of that little inconvenience.

At Work: It’s the big time, baby! You don’t have to get results, you just have to look busy in that cubicle. Time to make the $$ so you can buy those Prada shoes and that Louis Vuitton handbag you’ve been dying to get. Time to head to Vegas with your grrrlfraaaands for a long weekend; time to take your two weeks in Brazil (where you’ll meet Renaldo the swarthy bartender). Time to head out for weekends at the bars (where you’ll meet Harley McBadboy on Friday; and Alpha McGorgeous on Saturday for dinner). Oooh, Lance the Executive VP sure is cute. Susie and Jane and Becky all screwed him, and you’ll be next! But Bob up in Accounts? Eewwwww!! He looked at you too long; you and the other girls will get him fired in no time. All you have to do is accuse him of sexual harassment and he’ll be gone in a few days. If some guy at work says or does it, and you don’t like it, it’s harassment and grounds for termination.

In Dating: When you’re 23, you go on whatever dates you want with the most attractive, highest status men. This is your RIGHT as a woman; you’re ENTITLED to this kind of treatment. You can do whatever you want, wherever you want, with whomever you want. You can date as many men as you want and it’s none of his business. You can have sex with as many men as you want in as many ways as you want and no one can judge you. And if they do judge you, then they are judgmental pricks who don’t deserve the time of day. And all that indiscriminate sex will have no effect on you, your marriage market value, or your fertility. You have a right to whatever relationship you want with the men you date: a ONS, a short term relationship, a long term relationship, exclusive, nonexclusive. Whatever you want, that man MUST give it to you. He, on the other hand, has no right to ask for anything from you, whether it be commitment or exclusivity or to assign you to a spot in his harem. When you are done with the relationship, you have the right to end it for whatever reason you wish; or for no reason at all.

In Marriage: You weren’t able to snag the hottest men for marriage; but you were able to get Eddie Steadyman, a guy you knew from High School who has carried a torch for you since you were 15 years old. You dated him for a year until you were 29 and then told him you were either gonna get married or you were breaking up with him. He proposed within a month. You are entitled to whatever you want from him, and he MUST give it to you . He has a duty to give you whatever you want – a fact you make very, very clear to him at all times. You snared him with great sex on demand; after about 5 years of marriage it’s down to once every two or three months. Both of you are working like crazy. He’s gotten paunchy; you’ve got stretch marks from when Tyler and Whitney were born but you’re still in pretty good shape for 35 years old.

Eddie is harried; you’re stressed out; you take it out on him regularly. You finally caught the eye of your boss, and in more ways than one. He makes it clear he’s sexually interested in you. You resist because you’re married, but you’re unhaaaaappy and you know it. You just can’t figure out why you’re so unhaaaaappy. It must be because of Eddie. Every little thing he does bugs you. You don’t like the way he leaves the cap off the toothpaste. You don’t like the clutter he leaves. You don’t like his long work hours and how he doesn’t help you with the kids. And you HATE HATE HATE it when he comes home from work and wants to have sex with you. That’s the worst of all. But you have a right to get away from it. If you’re unhaaaappy, you can divorce him. You don’t have to stay in an unhaaappy marriage. You can leave. You can get a fresh start, a new life, because the Hunky Millionaire Handyman is waiting in the wings to snap you up! You’re still as hot as you were at 35 as you were at 19! You can still get a hot man even with your stretch marks, your two kids, your debt, and your psychotherapy bills!

In the second article, the manosphere is mentioned in an attempt to link it with sexual assault. She mentions two incidents of assault; one against girls, the other against unmentionable and unmentioned (boys).
The author of the second article closes with the following:
“What is masculinity about in Scotland 2013? If it’s still about being tougher, harder, less co-operative, caring or emotional than women, then the public world will descend into a vicious battle zone where some men can continue to prove their macho mettle.

Is that what most of us really want?”

The manosphere is about to go mainstream and that frightens the feminazis. Feminists cannot win with facts so they attack with lies. They are attempting to define the manosphere in order to link it with evil before it goes mainstream.

“”In synagogue, men would sit on one side and women on the other with a partition running down the center to avoid distraction and “wandering eyes”. This practice is still present today in many strict orthodox synagogues””

Yes it is.This takes place in the Synagogue that I attend.

“”Many practices that Paul institutes in the NT were a carryover from Judaism with some minor adjustments””

From my perspective 90% of Christian practices are a carryover from Judaism.

“”Hebrew women are trained to be submissive which is a direct contradiction of gentiles women who worshiped in pagan temples””

Yes they are trained to be submissive when growing up in the Synagogue.But,what the hell ever happened with that is beyond me! I find a lot of Jewish women to be the WORST Femi-Nazis I have ever encountered.Just look at the Feminist movement leaders and all the books written…….mostly all Jewish women!

#1) Many Pastors in Protestant Churches are female so OF COURSE they don’t see you list of problems as a problem

#2) The Pastors are paid by the church. The larger the church with the greatest number of middle class families, the more money that comes into the church. There is percentage of that, that goes right into the Pastor’s pocket. He can’t do too much to jeapordize that and it is (quite often) the WIFE who picks the church that she is most comfortable where the family goes to worship.

There are some irreconcilable differences here, some conflicts of interest that prevent what you mentioned from ever being mentioned in church. It is about Politics. And Politics is money.

@ Mark “From my perspective 90% of Christian practices are a carryover from Judaism.”
Uhm… I beg to differ on this. Actually very little is carried over.
The vast majority “Christians” think that honoring the sabbath is going to pagan based church/theology one hour a week on a pagan day and this is what Yahshua and his disciples taught/lived.

As it stands a American pastor CAN NOT teach scriptural submission, fear, obedience to their assemblies.
Much of the fault of feminism has been due to the Christian church embracing and teaching feminism (Jezebel ie w/o cohabitation). The result is society does not have a “light” and society blindly follows along.

If the major Christian denominations were to allow pious men / women (ie they practice what they preach) to teach the STERN commandments of Yahshua & the disciples (all 1053 of them) in light of the OT Torah – there would be a massive exodus out of organized Christianity.

Btw, as a side note. Mind if I ask your opinion since you are well versed with both sides?
I have been enjoying the Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha ( quite insightful) and wish to study more.
Any suggestions on the Zohar, Bahir, Sefer Yetzirah, Targums, Midrash Rabbah – there is a lot of material and I am trying to “chew the meat and spit out the bones”
~Shalom

“Very interesting. I wish every man in the west had a chance to see that. The economy is never coming back. With the US going socialist the west is with out hope and will fall into the European style of classes. The US with it’s constitution an aberration to begin with will never happen again.”

Yeah it’s going to an interesting era. Interesting in a rather dark and gruesome sort of way. But remember that when the S hits the fan the balance of power will shift decidedly to men and even more so to men that are prepared.

It is sadly necessary. Female nature requires a periodic reminder as to why they are better of under male tutelage. Harshness, war and brutality serve this function. Extended periods of peace, in contrast, feed their hamster which ups the ante until they collectively have delusions of grandeur and decide to meddle in the game of great men.

It is then that things go wrong. God protect us from deluded women and weakminded men…

“Women’s Suffrage DOES destroy Democracy. It destroys it through loose fiscal policy and never-ending needless legislation. This is what happens when you allow a gender that does not understand cause-and-effect to vote solely with their emotions.

Unfortunately, even if women gave men their Patriarchy back, I don’t think men in our country would take it. They are beaten down, fragements of what they once were. If you asked your average American man, he probably doesn’t even know what Women’s Suffrage is.”

I agree. The problem here is that the deal men have under patriarchy, men’s traditional role, already stinks. Think about it: you get to slave your life away to support your wife and children. It is a hard and serious life. You are tied down to some ungrateful, shrill harpy (more often than not) and can’t do your own thing.

Traditional society worked because men’s consciousness for their own interest was nonexistant and the destructive aspects of women’s nature were kept in check by social constructs such as traditions.

In hindsight wise men will agree, I suspect, that women’s tragic mistake was to destroy their ‘second Eden’ that was patriarchy. They had it made with men toiling for their benefit. Then, in a remarkably short time span, they decided to withdraw whatever small duties were expected of them, never suspecting that this in turn might leave to men deciding to break their far more sinister shackles as well.

Folly thus always cometh with a price tag. Sadly, innocent women will pay the price for the foolish women that went before them…

I suspect, that women’s tragic mistake was to destroy their ‘second Eden’ that was patriarchy.

Agreed. But remember why feminism got started in the first place….

Not all women are attractive. Not all women can catch a man and will be married.

So for some women (the unattractive ones, perhaps by no fault of their own) life on this planet without feminism isn’t Eden. It is 90 years of Hell. With feminism, the 90 years of Hell that the ugly women would have had, isn’t quite as hot.

innocentbystanderboston says:
“August 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm
I suspect, that women’s tragic mistake was to destroy their ‘second Eden’ that was patriarchy.

Agreed. But remember why feminism got started in the first place….

Not all women are attractive. Not all women can catch a man and will be married.

So for some women (the unattractive ones, perhaps by no fault of their own) life on this planet without feminism isn’t Eden. It is 90 years of Hell. With feminism, the 90 years of Hell that the ugly women would have had, isn’t quite as hot.”

lzoozozoz r u an idiot innocentbystanderboston?

the result of feminismz is not MORE WOMENZ GETTIG MAIRRIEDZ but LESS WOMENZ GETTNING MARRIED!!!

why do so many doofuses blind to reality post here’s? zlzoozozozoz TAKE YOUR RITALAINZ AND ADDEROLLZ LIKE DA REST OF US AND PAY ATTENTIONZ DMAMIT innocentbystanderboston lzolzolzozoozz

alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz

SPECIAL EDITION WEDDING CHORUS lzozozozo

i gave it 4 free when i was younger hotter tighter
back in college when i was thirty pounds lighter
can’t hardly wait to butthext yyou in divorce court
and have you fund my favorite buttehxtual sport
gonna buy sexy lingerie with all dat alimonee
fuck & suck alpha cocks as ur beta cock is just 4 pee
tee hee hee teee heee heee l
tee hee hee teee heee heee !
i’m da modern liberated womanz
i buttehxt before and after marriage
and during it too, but not with you
but with the father of da baby in da carriage
lzozozzlozoz

cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats

TFH writes, “But it is not that patriarchy was something we should assume as a normative state. Rather, what has never changed is that all human societies (Western, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern) were geared to transfer resources to women and costs onto men, for the reasons I described above. Whether in the era of tribal polygamy, or in the later monogamous Marriage 1.0 era, this was constant. I mean, only men had to die in wars. Also, of the US troop casualties in WW2, Korea, Vietman, and later, what percentage were women? Almost none.”

NO! All higher civilizations distributed risk and reward between men and women by subjugating a woman’s butt and gina tinagzlzlzloozoz to the patriarchal code of honor, whereby women were rewarded for their ability to abide by classical honor and traits such as loyalty, duty, virginity, chastity, and honoring god, man, and family over shopping channels and butt and gina tinzgzlzlzolzlzloozzooz.

Women were only granted resources to the degree they were loyal to the patriarchal family structure.

The federal reserve tapped into the vast power of butt and gina tinzgzlllzzz by presenting women with a new deal: “you can fuck and suck all you want, as long as you help us transfer funds and reosurces from men to the bankers/state. this means you won’t have a family, but the upside is all teh fucking, siuckcingz, butthext and abortiosnz that you want.”

and as Genesis pointed out long ago, women went for teh fucking, siuckcingz, butthext and abortiosnz ver God, Man, and Family lzozllzoozlz

the result of feminismz is not MORE WOMENZ GETTIG MAIRRIEDZ but LESS WOMENZ GETTNING MARRIED!!!

I wasn’t talking about the result. I was talking about the reason for feminism. You screwed it all up, best you go back and read more Great Books For Men.

Feminism can’t FORCE men to marry UGLY women. Other than pointing a gun to the head of a man “shotgun wedding style” you are not going to force a man to get married. And since feminists don’t believe in anyone other than police having guns, shotgun weddings of hapless beta males to women they didn’t already impregnante and don’t want to marry, aren’t happening.

What feminism does is empower ugly women such that they no longer need marriage to have the things the attractive women get through marriage. That is the reason for it, not marriage. Feminism takes away some of the goodies that only attractive women get through marriage and grants them to women who can’t get married. Feminism was NEVER about getting more women married. It was about removing looks as a category women need to concern themselves about when trying to have a nice lifestyle in mainstream society.

You combined two issues that were not related. Please do not call me an idiot.

Agree with this…..I will back up the percentage points a bit…..L*………What I was referring to is……about 3 years ago I met a Filipino family that happened to be “Seventh Day Adventists”….which is a “Christian Organization” …..they were great people…..want to come to Canada,work hard,education..etc…That’s great!……I knew nothing of the SDA……but I did find out that they go to church on Saturdays….don’t eat pork or seafood……and I said…..Wow!…..you guys would make Jews….maybe you should join our Synagogue……….

@Mark – no worries. Just a misinterpretation.
I think what you are referring to individual denominations are close to Judaism when combined or looked at collective whole. While it is “in the ballpark” it is far wide of the mark of righteousness, holiness, and stern obedience to the Torah of Yahshua and the disciples.

What feminism does is empower ugly women such that they no longer need marriage to have the things the attractive women get through marriage. That is the reason for it, not marriage. Feminism takes away some of the goodies that only attractive women get through marriage and grants them to women who can’t get married. Feminism was NEVER about getting more women married. It was about removing looks as a category women need to concern themselves about when trying to have a nice lifestyle in mainstream society.

The problem for feminists is they misunderstood just what women get through marriage. They only saw the transfer of funds and the status of husbands. What they failed to anticipate is that at the core women are competing with each other for status, not money. Money is useful to signal status, but it isn’t the whole package. Feminists assumed that if they could become like men, they would have the status of men, and they would also have the financial resources of the women who were able to marry high status men. They thought they could shortcut the traditional way women compete with one another for status. But status for women is much more deeply tied to winning the race to secure the attractive husband than just securing money. Having a husband has a status all of its own, as does having a father for their children. This is why we have aging feminists like Kate Bolick and Lori Gottlieb crying Where have all of the good men gone!

“Having a husband has a status all of its own, as does having a father for their children. This is why we have aging feminists like Kate Bolick and Lori Gottlieb crying Where have all of the good men gone!”

In years past, the status of being a wife meant provisioning for herself and children, protection from the harsher elements in the world, and affirmation of her worth as a woman – a man found her worthy enough to express a willingness to invest his time, money and resources in her.

But now, the status of being a wife means only affirmation and validation from men of ever-higher status. Its only significance seems to be the quality of the man she’s able to marry. She doesn’t need to be married to make money or have sex. Once she gets married to a man and has children, she doesn’t need to stay married to him in order to keep his income stream. All that matters is his status and how he measures up relative to other men. What women are failing to see is that there are only a finite number of those high status men, and there aren’t enough to go around to all the women who want them.

I suspect it’s always been the case that most women are married to men they aren’t super attracted to; she didn’t marry her first choice. The difference is that now she can get out of it easily.

No more of those silly youtubes. Stop it, right now. We don’t need that crap here to give feminists amunition in the forum of public opinion. Dalrock’s position is the right one. Do not ADD nonsense to it.

Dalrock.

I went bit by bit. I largely agree with everything but I think you left out some stuff.

The problem for feminists is they misunderstood just what women get through marriage. They only saw the transfer of funds and the status of husbands.

And sex. Don’t forget the sex.

Feminism is about power. Without feminism, a married woman has the power and a single woman doesn’t. WIthout feminism, those “butt and gina tingles” for the ugly women, go forever un-tingled. That is unacceptable because that is not fair to ugly women.

What they failed to anticipate is that at the core women are competing with each other for status, not money. Money is useful to signal status, but it isn’t the whole package. Feminists assumed that if they could become like men, they would have the status of men, and they would also have the financial resources of the women who were able to marry high status men.

All of that is true, but that goes back to power. They are trying to give power to ugly women who would not have that power, otherwise. That power comes from status. Changing the rules didn’t change the fact that married women still felt sorry for single women (still do) and thus, they don’t have the “status” with “each other.” They just found a way to get power from society without the status from each other.

They thought they could shortcut the traditional way women compete with one another for status. But status for women is much more deeply tied to winning the race to secure the attractive husband than just securing money. Having a husband has a status all of its own, as does having a father for their children. This is why we have aging feminists like Kate Bolick and Lori Gottlieb crying Where have all of the good men gone!

The biggest problem I have with Kate and Lori is that they don’t understand the root cause for feminism (either that or they want to re-write its history because the history of feminism is hurtful and insulting.) If every woman that wanted to get married was married the moment they wanted it, then there would be no need for ugly women to have feminism. They would have a husband and would thus have status and power. This is not the case (as men still want women they are attracted to), so we are left with feminism.

one of the hilarious things is that the same bolsheviks who instituted feminism in communist russia are doing it again today in america. and the innocentbystanderboston churchians will defend the feminists and destruction of the family unto death.

watch the churchian innocentbystanderboston attack Ph.D. economsists and professors who stand up for men’s rights.

witness the churchian innocentbystanderboston attacking Ph.D. economsists and professors who stand up for men’s rights, as ben bernake commands them to do lzzllzozozlzoz.

There’s a couple of mindblowingly stupid threads filled with feminist BS attackng dressing modestly going on at “Catholic” answers in the moral theology section right now. Not that you ever need to be told about a specific thread there to find leftist subversion of that site. Makes we wanna stop posting there. GAH.

GBFM’s comment August 7, 2013 at 5:00 pm about the central bankers was spot-on. There’s a lot of conspiracy theories out there about the illuminati, international corporations (consumerism/capitalism), NGOs, big pharmaceuticals (drugs and madness, or drugs and health) and the like. Some of them should be checked out. Quite interesting and profound.

No, GreatBooksForMen is in the right for calling you out on your perspective, since it’s wrong… You are focused too much on woman’s role in feminism. True, there are women who propagate the destructive ideas as the O.P. has written. But there isn’t much affect to considering a woman’s motive. Beyond hypergamy, which many women won’t acknowledge up front, a woman’s “surface” motivation for feminism will always be changing. Convincing a woman of feminism’s evils is difficult (see @Sir_Chancellot’s excellent comment above) and even if convinced, the effort won’t bear long term fruit as the “hamster” always comes back… That’s why feminism isn’t a man vs. woman problem – it’s a man vs. man problem.

The two sides are the nationalist, traditionalist men who have blood running through their veins and an eye for future generations Versus the materialist sociopaths who unfortunately sit in so many elite positions.

So, three things people from the manosphere can do to help: realize the extent of the problem, help others realize there is a problem, help others realize the extent of the problem. When enough people are informed, nature will take its course and government policymakers will pass the laws to undo this mess.

Winners both, most certainly. But count on having your car demolished by enraged brainstemming feminazis and their white knight enablers should you ever dare to put either one of them on your car bumper.

You are preaching to the choir with those youtubes. I would say that everyone here hates no-fault-divroce. Okay, good. We’re all on the same side. But that doesn’t take away from my point about the root of feminism.

Yes feminists love no-fault-divorce. But no-fault-divorce is not the root of feminism.

A.J.P.
Remember women vote too. Women are very self centered. Enough so as to demand the right to kill a child that interferes with the hypergamy (abortion). Think about everything taught, learned or discussed here in the manosphere and think of where women need to be to vote out the laws of misandry in their on wicked self interest. It is where the manoshere is today. At least it is for me. many men still believe there is reasoning with women. (No there isn’t, remember they will kill a baby in the name of hypergamy, Can’t reason with that if it involves empathy for the plight of others) Solomon’s comment to you was based on his knowledge of what I’m talking about now.
My idea to motivate the bitches was involuntary childless spinsterhood. Love to see what you have. Then we can talk about ways to mae it happen on a national scale

Would Dalrock care to expand his 7.58 comment into an essay. Along the way he could then explain why the bride’s promise to obey her husband is a reflection of her new status rather than a form of Stockholm Syndrome. He might also say something about what multiple marriages adds (or not) to a woman’s status. Can it be purely coincidental that married men are so attractive to single women – but I leave it to Dalrock to write this.

Would Dalrock care to expand his 7.58 comment into an essay. Along the way he could then explain why the bride’s promise to obey her husband is a reflection of her new status rather than a form of Stockholm Syndrome. He might also say something about what multiple marriages adds (or not) to a woman’s status. Can it be purely coincidental that married men are so attractive to single women – but I leave it to Dalrock to write this.

I’ll kick that around and see if I can write up a post on that, maybe over the weekend. On the specific topic of multiple marriages, there is a clear limit on the “empowerment” of divorce. Notice that the divorce fantasies follow a strict pattern. Following divorce the woman often samples a group of men who compete for her affection (the excitement of a new round of courtship), but the divorce fantasies end with one suitor proving himself better than all of the rest and committing himself to her. This is the case in EPL, Stella Got Her Groove Back, Single In The Suburbs, even Lorraine Berry sticks to the script. A woman who doesn’t remarry immediately can reasonably claim to still be in the rebirthed courtship process, or more plausibly in the doldrums before all of the magic the universe rewards divorcees with begins. But after enough years and as her SMV continues to drop if she doesn’t remarry it starts to seep in that she is not on the fantasy track; instead of trading up she ended up alone. The flipside to this is if she does remarry, a second divorce isn’t seen as empowerment. On Answers you see women worrying about marrying the second time because they don’t want to be a two time divorcee. It is also common to see women who have divorced twice come on Answers and complain about men, only to have team woman turn the tables and suggest “maybe it’s you”. If she doesn’t stick the landing and trade up (or at least spin a plausible yarn) and stick with another man empowerment morphs into “she can’t keep a man”. Women understand this instinctively, which is much of the reason they so often want to stay in the separation phase. Making your husband jump through hoops to convince you not to divorce simulates the rebirthed courtship phase with less risk, which is how the Christian divorce fantasy Fireproof delivers the goods.

Dalrock
You have this unique ability to “see” and learn. Your wisdom comes from observation and not from affirmation. So many have ideas or thoughts and look for fits rather than just observe and report. Maybe I’m thinking to much into it Not hard to find affirmation of the truth. You are the cultural leader after the collapse.

After reading my comments here, have you really gotten the impression that I’m someone who is so enchanted or beholden to democracy?

I’m more on Mr. De Tocqueville’s side when he wrote “Democracy in America”. Otherwise, I tend to agree with what “GBFM” brings up with honor and the like. It’s hard take women seriously as voters, likewise with the sheeple (low information voters). There is some comfort in that there are others espousing the same beliefs, like @TFH.

Women Voters are not to be taken seriously but they do vote and destruction of western society that brings us here together today was due to the female vote and will get worse due to the female vote. The trick is not to tell you how dumb or wrong you are far from it. But to find a way at this time for the same women and motivation to vote themselves out of having the vote. They will do so with the same wicked selfishness that got us here today.
To answer the question nope. democracy is what we have, well actually a representative republic with a constitution that is supposed to be the actual government. It is being run as a democracy and a republic selectively to the whims of the elite class.
Not here to fight with you. just making a conversation on a subject I am interested in.

there is a clear limit on the “empowerment” of divorce. Notice that the divorce fantasies follow a strict pattern. Following divorce the woman often samples a group of men who compete for her affection (the excitement of a new round of courtship), but the divorce fantasies end with one suitor proving himself better than all of the rest and committing himself to her. This is the case in EPL, Stella Got Her Groove Back, Single In The Suburbs, even Lorraine Berry sticks to the script. A woman who doesn’t remarry immediately can reasonably claim to still be in the rebirthed courtship process, or more plausibly in the doldrums before all of the magic the universe rewards divorcees with begins. But after enough years and as her SMV continues to drop if she doesn’t remarry it starts to seep in that she is not on the fantasy track; instead of trading up she ended up alone.

In our neck of the woods, what I’ve been seeing (lately) is very physically attractive gold-diggers who married for money at (say) age 25 to a man 10+ years older (medical doctor, lawyer, Corporate Exec, whatever), they have kids, he hits his early 50s and she is still in her very late 30s or early 40s and is sick of f@cking this man she was never in love with. She discovers FACEBOOK and no-fault-divorce law in a community property state. With Facebook, she re-connects to a young boy (now 39 year old man) that she was in love with when she was much younger but would never have married because he has no education or any real earning power. He was the very cute and tall but stupid alpha who could never give her the lifestyle she wanted. Well, she has that covered now with alimony from the man she is married So finally, she can have it all!

So she gets an attorney, gets a quickie no-fault-divorce, and gets $4 to $6K a month in alimony and child support. She moves in with the still great looking alpha male that she was f@cking before she married the 10+ year older beta male who had the education and the earning power. She does not remarry because that would cost her, her monthly checks. She just lives with the love of her life, is finally happy and having the sex she always wanted, and continues getting checks from the man she had children with. For her, its a win-win. And her kids go live with her and their lives are totally ruined.

If Dante is right and there are 9 planes of Hell, he soul is most certainly damned for at least the 7th plane, maybe lower.

And the man who she had children with, his life is ruined. Of course, he becomes jaded and feels violated. How could he not? But (and I might get flamed for this) this is what he should have expected marrying purely for his sexual attraction, a woman so much younger than he was. Of course she was going to do this, she never loved him and he is supposed to be smart enough to know that.

Provided this man ins’t married himself. Isn’t it part of the delusion that this man who she passed over has been saving himself for her the entire time she was married to rich guy?

The cases of this that I have seen (and maybe it’s just my small sampling) the alpha “was” married (and quite often had kid(s)) and is now divorced as well. But he didn’t get crushed in divorce court the way the beta did because he married a woman that either made more money than he did OR because he didn’t make very much, the court did not order him to pay very much. (Can’t take blood from a stone, and if you have nothing to lose, divorce is not as frightening.)

So the math works out better for the dummy alpha male because he has less assets and earnings to lose. And when the woman he wanted to marry comes back into his life (with a big check each month) it makes things that much easier for him. He can live with her and sleep with her (which is all he wants) he just can’t marry her because she loses the check.

This is why I am always very dubious of men marrying women that much younger than they are. I see that on some of the manosphere blogs (chase the younger women because they ahve very low N’s) and I encourage them NOT to do this because the laws are designed to crush them (perhaps years later.) But these guys are already jaded because when they were younger the real pretty women would not even bat their eyes at them and so they feel they are entitled to a younger pretty woman eventually,when they get their earning power up then they will have one. And then they get burned.

In our neck of the woods, what I’ve been seeing (lately) is very physically attractive gold-diggers who married for money at (say) age 25 to a man 10+ years older (medical doctor, lawyer, Corporate Exec, whatever), they have kids, he hits his early 50s and she is still in her very late 30s or early 40s and is sick of f@cking this man she was never in love with. She discovers FACEBOOK and no-fault-divorce law in a community property state. With Facebook, she re-connects to a young boy (now 39 year old man) that she was in love with when she was much younger but would never have married because he has no education or any real earning power. He was the very cute and tall but stupid alpha who could never give her the lifestyle she wanted. Well, she has that covered now with alimony from the man she is married So finally, she can have it all!

Yes. This is the fantasy. The problem is it is very seldom how it works out. Yes divorced women often describe this experience, or we learn about it happening to “a friend of a friend”. For women who claim to have this happen to them, have you noticed that Mr. (or Dr.) perfect never seems to make it to the dinner parties, etc? The reason should be quite obvious; why exactly is this tall successful alpha 39 years old and pining for a same age divorced single mother? To hear the stories you would think these men are available by the truckload. If only OK Cupid could find them.

So she gets an attorney, gets a quickie no-fault-divorce, and gets $4 to $6K a month in alimony and child support. She moves in with the still great looking alpha male that she was f@cking before she married the 10+ year older beta male who had the education and the earning power. She does not remarry because that would cost her, her monthly checks. She just lives with the love of her life, is finally happy and having the sex she always wanted, and continues getting checks from the man she had children with. For her, its a win-win. And her kids go live with her and their lives are totally ruined.

Somehow financially successful alphas prefer older divorced women with another man’s child, and while they would desperately love to marry these women they have to settle for pledging their undying love to her instead.

Somehow financially successful alphas prefer older divorced women with another man’s child, and while they would desperately love to marry these women

No no, two things.

#1) The alpha is not financially successful, the beta was

#2) The alpha does not want to marry this woman he’s living with. He just wants to live with her and f@ck her. He does not want to do ANYTHING to jeapordize those monthy checks that come in from the chump beta male that was stupid enough to marry her…

Women understand this instinctively, which is much of the reason they so often want to stay in the separation phase. Making your husband jump through hoops to convince you not to divorce simulates the rebirthed courtship phase with less risk, which is how the Christian divorce fantasy Fireproof delivers the goods.

Divorce attorney told me this straight up, meaning not in answer to a question i asked nor as part of any red pill discussion. he took a call, when he hung up he said exactly this, that is was a woman whose final divorce date was near, and she was looking for extension of the drama. She wanted him to find something ti do or to file that would keep hubby under the temporary orders and them still legally married. He claimed, off the cuff, more than half his female clients do this.

#2) The alpha does not want to marry this woman he’s living with. He just wants to live with her and f@ck her. He does not want to do ANYTHING to jeapordize those monthy checks that come in from the chump beta male that was stupid enough to marry her…

You are still missing the point. Your story assumes the SMV equivilant of water running uphill. Somehow these men with all of the options choose older women with baggage, because she is just so special. I know this is the standard script, and I have no doubt there are isolated cases where this worked out. But it isn’t anywhere near normal. This is why the “true life” stories are either made up entirely, or when you look at the actual men the yarn was spun about it is outright laughable. Match.com ran a supposedly true life series that plays out just like you say, with the middle aged divorced single mother snagging a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman. He doesn’t marry her, but he begs her to accept his pledge of undying love. But while Match.com claims the story is true, they hired a romance writer to write it. Likewise Eat Pray Love. That hot latin stud turns out to be a man 17 years older than her, who is short, balding, and married her because he needed a visa so he could come to the US and move into her house. She has since set him up with a shop to run. Similarly with How Stella Got Her Groove Back. In real life the hot Jamaican stud was visibly gay (seriously, everyone but her had to know) and (what are the odds) married her for a visa. If this happens so often, why the need to make up or laughably change the “true life” stories? These stories are a gold mine. Why are all of these women keeping their story secret?

Well, yes – democracy under a republican constitution is what we have now. However, it doesn’t have to stay that way and, yet, it doesn’t require a bloody civil war to remove it. Steps could be made to establish traditional hierarchy again, perhaps most notably in a hereditary positions of authority and if authority is too much for right now, then why not in hereditary positions of public relations- style figureheads?

There are so many who would see that as elitism. And they would be partly right, but as the scourge of “full” democracy has taught us, the new elites would actually be positioned to provide traditionalist cover for the lower ranking citizens (subjects). But those who see it as elitism are brutish and proletarian-focused types who would complain all the same, advocating for a more-and-more casual style throughout their daily lives – these are the same types who want collared shirts everywhere replaced by formless t-shirts, who rage against the necktie, and who workthemselves into a lather to make sure that daytime weddings are constituted of lounge suits without a morning coat in sight… But if we can’t get ourselves out of the uber-prole malaise.

Then the next option would be to stay the course and become stronger proles. That is to head into nationalist politics, which, in practice, seems a bit distasteful and at the same time only seems to be taking hold in places like Greece where unemployment is 25%. If this course is taken, we should steel ourselves for the power-moves that will be seen in the establishment of such a political force. Will it happen in the U.S. in a time of relatively high percentage employment? It’s doubtful, because people will still be voting themselves largesse from the public treasury, to get back to Mr. De Tocqueville. No, they’ll still be voting for bailouts of their favorite industry to keep the unions fat and happy, they’ll still be voting for welfare “queens”, and subsidies ad nauseum. I don’t have to remind anyone that the unsustainable spending will just make it harder up until, during, and after the financial implosion.

So let’s pre-empt that by getting rid of the knee-jerk reaction to the formation of a new nobility. Let’s keep taking the red pill. The afore-mentioned “policymakers passing the laws to end the mess” don’t have to be instituted in a pure republic, quite the contrary. And, to prepare yourselves for the hierarchical change, begin with an aesthetic one… Start by getting back to traditional canon law, while I know a low church style is part of many of your identities, expand your imagination to consider why that might be an impediment against traditional, good hierarchies. And, I’ve already alluded to the denomination that seems the best for it.

It’s much easier to critique than to suggest pro-active measures, G.G. so I hope you appreciate what I’ve done here. Don’t worry, I have a mostly empty blog that I copy-paste my writings into. And, tell your friend @Solomon to keep the pacifier in his gob and keep on the blanket with his Tinker Toys while people are talking shop…

2. Ex-Hubby has probably moved on and possibly married someone else so that shipped has sailed. It’s not like you can go throw yourself on his mercies. Even if he’s not seeing anyone or married, he’s not going to want anything to do with your (insert preferred expletive(s) here).

3. Hard to justify to feminist herd that you traded down. (You know, considering the diversity of female complaints, I’m finding the herd mentality hard to believe). So even if a woman wanted to now change the narrative and rant and rave about the appeal of short, balding men (or whatever undesirable trait new guy possesses), she wouldn’t be believed. The her would respond: “maybe it’s you.”

4. Men can’t call women out of this (without extreme backlash that is) so women are free to keep fantasizing.

You are still missing the point. Your story assumes the SMV equivilant of water running uphill. Somehow these men with all of the options choose older women with baggage, because she is just so special.

No you missed what I said. In these circumstances that I am mentioning, the 39 year old divroced dummy alpha (and former love interest of the now divorced gold-digger who left her old-man-beta with a check each month) does not have all the options. He has NO other options.

She sought him out on Facebook. She never stopped loving HIM. She always wanted to be with HIM (ad not beta male chump) but would never marry HIM because HE could not get her the lifestyle she felt she was entitled. She got that lifestyle when she married the beta. She just wants the beta lifestyle she had and she wants to f@ck the alpha she never stopped loving. The fact that the alpha no longer has any other options does not mean that she isn’t goign to go for him now. She still wants him even if no one else does.

…the 39 year old divroced dummy alpha (and former love interest of the now divorced gold-digger who left her old-man-beta with a check each month) does not have all the options. He has NO other options.

There is a term for men without options in the dating world, and it isn’t Alpha. It isn’t even Beta. Such a man is an Omega.

#2) The alpha does not want to marry this woman he’s living with. He just wants to live with her and f@ck her. He does not want to do ANYTHING to jeapordize those monthy checks that come in from the chump beta male that was stupid enough to marry her…

&

Why are all of these women keeping their story secret?

I actually agree with IBB that this happens pretty frequently, and with Dalrock that these women are keeping it (relatively) secret. This is what it means to be a cougar. The unmentioned bit so far is that these second-hand alphas are (or soon will be) banging other broads, too.

The Alpha doesn’t move in with the chick she is just on the booty call list. He maybe given a key to the place but by age thirty nine he knows how things work. An alpha will do enough to cover himself but is not stupid enough to take on a woman’s load. Another thing is a cool alpha would have some young side stuff too and both would think they were the other woman. The ultimate in hard would be the alpha making a booty call while his girlfriend waited in the car. Things get that bad in this world and the women eat that up, as Heartiste would say chick crack.

Seems like some of the dudes here are living in beta chump fantasy land

If you are a beta and you are a sexually frustrated beta (frustrated that the most attractive women wouldn’t pay you any interest when you were younger and had limited earning power) and as a result, you would not settle for anything less than a young pretty girl to marry (with a low N) when you were making good money as an older beta, then you might wind up a chump. After a while she is probably going to leave you and go back to the alpha. She married you for your money and you married her for her looks and her low N. You are more than ten years older and when you are 36 and she’s 24, thats okay. When she’s 38 (with the kids, so no ticking biological clock) and you are 50 it is NOT okay. She’s going back to the alpha that she couldn’t marry because he didn’t have your earning power. She can now live with and sleep with him and she has “status” with all the other “cougars” who are doing the same thing (cashing big monthly alimony checks while sleeping with the better looking alphas that don’t earn money.) That is how they keep score. The sincere married women who love their Christian husbands will probably NOT have anything to do with these women.

This is the result of no-fault-divorce combined with community property states. It is also the main reason why I strongly encourage men to chase women their own age. I don’t care if you are upset that when you were younger the pretty girls were banging the alphas and not you. When you are older, they will come back to you. If you wont take them back later on (because of their higher N) and you chase the really young ones with the low Ns, you can marry the young ones but it is more likely that they will leave you and take your money with them. Hopefully they don’t, hopefully they will love you and STOP looking at you as just beta provider, but the odds aren’t good.

Just my experience. I know the manosphere is probably pretty torn on this one but… stick with the women your own age is my suggestion. Forget about the N.

I actually agree with IBB that this happens pretty frequently, and with Dalrock that these women are keeping it (relatively) secret. This is what it means to be a cougar. The unmentioned bit so far is that these second-hand alphas are (or soon will be) banging other broads, too.

If she is still physically attractive, she will find men who are interested in having sex with her. They won’t as a group be the level of men interested in having sex with her 10-15 years ago, but if she is attractive some of these men will no doubt be attractive. This will remain the case so long as she remains attractive. When that ends, so does all attention from men with options. But finding men, even attractive men, who are willing to have sex with her after divorce isn’t the fantasy IBB is talking about. He is talking about women divorcing and receiving commitment from a more attractive man, and specifically a more attractive man her own age.

Said another way: Mark Minter and Kate are no secret.

I’m not sure how you meant this, but I’m guessing we are on the same page here. As I understand it Kate is a 30 year old single mother, and Minter is a 50 something man who can’t afford a place of his own. In IBB’s world Kate would be insane to overlook all of the well adjusted, successful, and attractive 30 year old men dying to profess their undying love to her. In the real world Mark Minter is a good option for her, and vice versa.

The scenario you describe is entirely plausible. The period of separation offers the frivorcer typically all of the goodies of the eventual split (per my attorney, temporary orders for child support and alimony are typically as high or higher than those eventually awarded in the decree) and the husband may still be bearing some or the same costs as during marriage that will eventually revert to the frivorcer (e.g., car and health insurance).

But finding men, even attractive men, who are willing to have sex with her after divorce isn’t the fantasy IBB is talking about. He is talking about women divorcing and receiving commitment from a more attractive man, and specifically a more attractive man her own age.

Divorced former gold-digger, now happily living in sin with former alpha boyfriend, cougar: “Guess what honey?”

Former alpha, now semi-good looking middle divorced man with very limited earning power, and smallish alimony payments to former wife while living in sin to former girl friend from years back when she wouldn’t marry him because he didn’t have a lot of prospect for earning power: “What is it honey?”

Cougar: “The check came in. $5300 in the bank, cha-CHING!”

Former alpha: “Ha ha, great. That old f@ck ex-husband of yours is such a beta chump. It’s like Powerball check each month! Lets celebrate his earning.”

Cougar: “Already stopped and got two bottles of wine. I’m thinking this weekend we take my kids and your daughter to Disney, do you have her this weekend?”

Former alpha: “Sure do, and I have the weekend off at McDonalds, I love you babe.”

Cougar: “I love you too, now go take your clothes off before my kids come home.”

Innocent bystander says to ‘Man up and marry those sluts!’ Why are you guys not listening?

Anyway, if you’re not good enough for her then, you’re still not good enough for her now. That’s the truth of the matter. The point being that you shouldn’t marry simply to get married, you need to marry, if you’re going to take the plunge, to a young girl ready for commitment. If she’s just another whore looking for alpha cock and beta bucks, why get married? That goes for both younger and older women. Don’t get married and live for God and honour instead.

The proof is not in the age, it’s in the woman’s ability to control her hypergamy. And if she cannot do that at a very young age and get married at a young age, she ain’t worth the time.

Anyway bystander, it is better to have 15 to 20 years with a younger, hotter and tighter woman, who actually might not divorce you, than 40 years with an ‘independent, moxie loving, feminista, lotsacocka’ whore who doesn’t divorce you to take up with other alphas, but simply divorces you to take up with her cats…

The old cougar, who rejected you when younger, is a known whore already, the young and nubile early 20 something ‘wife to be’ can still prove you wrong.

Former alpha: “Ha ha, great. That old f@ck ex-husband of yours is such a beta chump. It’s like Powerball check each month! Lets celebrate his earning.”

Cougar: “Already stopped and got two bottles of wine. I’m thinking this weekend we take my kids and your daughter to Disney, do you have her this weekend?”

Former alpha: “Sure do, and I have the weekend off at McDonalds, I love you babe.”

Cougar: “I love you too, now go take your clothes off before my kids come home.”

Taking this full circle, you are overlooking the massive status hit this woman has taken. Yes she has a big chunk of her former husbands assets and earnings, and yes she has found a man whom she tingles for who will move in with her to help spend her ex’s money. But the status hit is huge. You say she isn’t marrying him just because she would lose the checks, but this would still be true if her cash and prizes were for child support instead of alimony (more common). Marrying a man who in middle age has still not gotten his career off the ground would be humiliating after having divorced a successful man. Walking down the aisle with this man would make her the laughingstock of the women in her circle. And this only gets worse the older she gets. As she ages he is either going to leave altogether or become more and more obvious about sponging off of her while banging other women. You are thinking like a man, but it is different for women. If they made an EPL for men, your scenario with the sexes reversed and swapping out a 20 something stripper for 40 something McDonalds dude is pretty much how they would write it.

“whore who doesn’t divorce you to take up with other alphas, but simply divorces you to take up with her cats…”

This is hilarious. So it’s better to be left for cats than another man? No wonder a woman invents a whole fairy tale narrative about divorce and her prospects. Who wakes up in the morning and says “I’m going to leave my husband for cats.”??

Anyway bystander, it is better to have 15 to 20 years with a younger, hotter and tighter woman, who actually might not divorce you, than 40 years with an ‘independent, moxie loving, feminista, lotsacocka’ whore who doesn’t divorce you to take up with other alphas, but simply divorces you to take up with her cats…

No, it most certainly is NOT better.

I’ll take the 40 years of marriage and no divorce, thankyouverymuch. If she wants cats, we’ll go get cats, she doesn’t need the divorce for cats. But she might need me to drive the Buick to see the grandkids.

The old cougar, who rejected you when younger, is a known whore already, the young and nubile early 20 something ‘wife to be’ can still prove you wrong.

I hope you are right FH because I hate divorce so much. But I really just think you are a pervert who wants to justify a need for a tighter pussy You said as much already..

Dalrock there is an exception. Its not about the financial status of success necessarily, or title at work, etc. The man could be a tradesman, that in particular has a status that this cash and prize woman could flaunt.

I know a woman, was a girl from high school. She married a guy who worked for Shell Oil, they lived all over Europe etc. He rose to VP. She and he adopted a Bulgarian baby, they moved back to Texas, and she frivorced his ass.

She is a very attractive late 40’s woman, and her new live in is a cabinet installer. He doesn’t own a cabinet company, not even a small one. HE installs cabinets. If he was a “good mechanic”, or a landscaper, or did wood flooring, etc….and even if he couldn’t afford his own rent, she gets a status bump from landing the guy that works with his hands. Meanwhile, he does so expressly because he never had a career, worked for a cabinet installer long enough to install them himself, and does just enough jobs to pay a car note.

IBB, I’m sure your scenario happens. In fact I’ve seen it happen a couple of times. Here’s how it ultimately plays out:

She is attractive in a cougarish, put together, “Real Housewives of___” way. She’s 43; she’s got a few good years left after her nose job, boob job, eye lift and tummy tuck. Got the house and a big alimony/CS settlement for a couple of years. She takes up with her college flame, Lance Lacrosse Player, also 43, who works as a Phys. Ed. Teacher. He’s still in good shape and pulls down a respectable $42K a year at Local High School. Half of that $42K goes to Lance’s ex wife in alimony and CS.

Lance takes up with Ms. Cougarrific for a while. They don’t get married, of course, because she wants to keep getting those fat alimony checks. She’s a sugar mama; he’s her boy toy. Eventually, of course, she wants commitment. She wants to keep him. But Lance is at his SMV peak. A natural alpha, he strains against any kind of commitment to any woman, least of all Sugar Mama Cougar. Oh, he’ll keep up appearances; but he eventually starts sleeping with other women on the downlow.

As Cougar becomes more Cougar and less ‘rific, he starts getting more brazen. She finds out about his serial “cheating” and kicks him out. She’s 48 now and her looks are going downhill. There are plenty of 35 year old fresh divorcees and never married lawyers with Pilates-toned asses who will happily date and have sex with 48 year old, still ruggedly handsome Lance.

Cougar, on the other hand, now has no options. Her looks are fading by the day; the final impact with The Wall is looming large; and her CS and alimony payments will be ramping down soon.

She still took a big status hit. If she married the cabinet installer her girlfriends and female relatives would all be talking about the fact that her last husband was an oil co exec. Her ex husband shows up with his much younger and prettier girlfriend or new wife to seal the deal.

Think of it this way. The cabinet installer and McDonalds employee hit the jackpot. They avoided the stress that comes with being a success, and they still end up with relatively attractive women who pay their way. They are the ones sitting pretty, and when sugar momma goes broke or hits the wall, they simply move on to the next one (how they got here). These women made out like bandits financially, but status wise they took a huge hit.

Should Dalrock be motivate over the weekend to write-up, he might perhaps spare a paragraph for the never married woman; her position without status, or the baggage that are illegitimate children, but merely a decreasing MMV (by reason of age and lowering SMV) but on the plus side she can be the envy of her married friends as she has that corporate lifestyle and salary to match – just as good as any man!

Do you mean a never married woman who does not desire marriage or a never married woman who wants to get married? Her lifestyle may or may not bring her status depending on this desire (or the desire of women around her). Other women could envy her or they could pity her.

IBB, I’m sure your scenario happens. In fact I’ve seen it happen a couple of times. Here’s how it ultimately plays out:

Oh I agree. I never said that (for a lifetime) this plays out great for the Cougar. It isn’t going to, but in the end, she’s happy for at least a few more years. If she stays married to beta bucks and avoid the alpha fux she wont be happy, short term. Long term, remains to seen.

Women (particularly the young ones) tend to think more short term. This is (again) the concept where women dont understand cause-and-effect. I tend to believe that if the husband and wife are near the same age (even if her pussy isn’t as tight, too bad FH), my divorce scenario is far less likely to happen.

I’m not sure how you meant this, but I’m guessing we are on the same page here. As I understand it Kate is a 30 year old single mother, and Minter is a 50 something man who can’t afford a place of his own.

Exactly so.

Marrying a man who in middle age has still not gotten his career off the ground would be humiliating after having divorced a successful man. Walking down the aisle with this man would make her the laughingstock of the women in her circle. And this only gets worse the older she gets. As she ages he is either going to leave altogether or become more and more obvious about sponging off of her while banging other women. You are thinking like a man, but it is different for women.

Perfectly said.

Mark Minter was a sort of a Fonzie of the Manosphere; particularly of the MGTOW crowd. The sort of guy (on the Internet) who others admired because he wrote tough (cough!) and many others believed it because…well, a lot of others believed it…you see. The truth is that the Fonz is 5-foot nuthin’ and his name’s Arthur Fonzarelli; a bit of detritus that washed up in a white-picket neighborhood in a faux 1950’s TV show. Then one day he jumped the Kate, and somebody goes: “Hey! That guy’s not an Italian toughguy: He’s a Jew!” And like that (POP!) the Fonz was dispelled and we couldn’t wait for Henry Winkler to go away.

Real life has a way of giving everyone the jump the shark moment. Women who frivolously divorce their husbands to live the empowered and independent good life will get their moment, too. Ne’er-do-well’s tend to ne’er do anything well for long; even just be alpha enough to keep a woman’s interest; or to put up with her bullshit for an easy lay.

Oh I agree. I never said that (for a lifetime) this plays out great for the Cougar. It isn’t going to, but in the end, she’s happy for at least a few more years. If she stays married to beta bucks and avoid the alpha fux she wont be happy, short term. Long term, remains to seen.

Whether she is happy or not in the short term, she has to say she is happy or she looks like she lost her bet (as she did). You are also assuming that she truly would have been unhappy if she stayed married. I tend to disagree. Divorce empowerment/fantasy is sold hard to women, and it is constant. Look at any entertainment aimed at women and you will see it, day in, day out. She is relentlessly bombarded with the message that if she only manages to get unhappy, she can say those magic words which will lead to her hitting the cosmic jackpot:

I’m… Nooot… Haaaaapy!

So she works herself into a lather getting good and unhappy. She has to really sell it, including to herself, in order to justify what she is about to do to her kids. She has to be really really unhappy, otherwise she can’t trigger the miraculous chain of events which will bring her excitement, drama, and ultimately her very own secret multimillionaire hunky handyman. Even here note as Empath pointed out, large numbers of women balk at the finalization of the divorce. In the back of their mind they know better. If they were really that miserable being married this wouldn’t be the case; it would be pure release with the cash and prizes just icing on the cake. But it terrifies them. Don’t just take Empath’s lawyer’s word for it, hang out on Answers Marriage and divorce and see the aspiring frivorcees looking for words of encouragement. What kind of men can I expect to date after I divorce?

I’m not sure what you mean by “long term”, but the study I shared here found that things turned around within five years if the unhappy spouse stayed married.

Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later. Just one out of five of unhappy spouses who divorced or separated had happily remarried in the same time period.

On the subject of marital happiness, my book from OUP supports the notion that those who stay together remain happier in the long run than those who bail – although the interesting thing about happiness is that it tends to remain pretty stable over a lifetime (bar the odd dramatic up and down say winning the lottery or divorcing); as the old saying has it ‘I’ve been down so long it feels like up’ – happy people tend to be happier and people who are happy to marry tend to be happier people anyway rather than single curmudgeons – just consider the awful, bitter, resentful feminists like Marcotte et al if you want to observe misery wallowing in its own juices. It is hardly surprising: I can assure all that since my unpaid gigolo days (in my mid twenties) when I happily serviced any number of unhappy divorcees, I have never and would never even consider dating a divorcee: why should my luck be any better than their husband’s – why would I want second hand goods especially when (if one is patient), sooner or later a single woman will come along. Just how many times can a person in all seriousness and full commitment embark on a lifetimes enterprise like marriage. Perhaps, if you had one of those starter marriages in your Teens that lasted all of six months, one can put it behind one, but when you are forty-plus, laden with children and an ex-husband?

1) That status marker of marriage is a cultural construct. A learned behavior. This makes it mostly a conscious thing, and therefore is relatively weak when compared to all the other mental instructions running through her head.

2) Alpha Widowhood, or pining for “The One That Got Away” is a subconscious impulse that affects a woman. This makes it more powerful and more important in terms of impacting a woman’s behavior that conscious decisions.

3) Status is not the only thing which drives women to men. There are a wide range of factors, with the man’s masculine Power being the most determinative. This too is an unconscious or subconscious affair, and thus more powerful than any conscious choice.

Taken together, I think we should be wary of assigning too much influence on a woman’s behavior of cultural conditioning in the form of status markers. Raw, primal biological urges are far more likely to drive female behavior than any immediate status concerns vis-a-vis marriage.

I started looking at the HUS site because VD said it was doing a good thing. It seems to me she is just going short term relationships that are a bit longer rather than aiming at something really good. The name seems to say it all when it is “hooking up.” That implies short term to me.

That status marker of marriage is a cultural construct. A learned behavior. This makes it mostly a conscious thing, and therefore is relatively weak when compared to all the other mental instructions running through her head.

Why do you assume that? There are very sound biological reasons a woman would want to secure a high level of enduring investment from a man. Children need fathers, and as our experiment with fatherlessness/parade of stepfathers proves the stability of marriage matters a great deal in the outcome for children. Women who secure a father for their children give their children an important advantage. Also, notice the physical toll promiscuity takes on women. Marriage is quite natural. Promiscuity and fatherless children is more unnatural than lifelong marriage.

Dalrock, I am talking about the social status marker aspect of marriage only. As you point out, there are very sound reasons why women want to secure commitment from as high-value a male as possible. And women certainly are judged by their ability to secure commitment from a male. There is most definitely a biological aspect to the female drive to seek commitment.

However, the “EPL script” wherein the woman marries better with her second marriage, where she must marry better, is a conscious effort. Even as she looks for a suitable male to re-marry to, and thus fulfill the dream, she is subconsciously assessing male attractiveness, as well as possibly pining for an old flame. These primal impulses are very powerful, and if they are both triggered, than her Hamster would no doubt be up to the task of tricking her conscious mind into thinking that Lance Lacrosse Player meets the criteria to “trade up.” She may start out looking to trade up, but as the saying goes: Tingles Uber Alles.

Basically, while women may have a “plan” to start out with, they will quickly lose control of this plan to the Hamster, which will let their basic biology take the wheel.

Too much logic is being applied to the hypergamy choices women make on the second marriage. The only thing that matters is she got a man. That hamster can make that guy whatever she wants him to be reality and the logic you all are applying here have no place in her hamster land. Lets not forget women lead the households now so status from what he does is not so much. If he can make toasted ice he is perfect. Then the hamster can retire. And she will fall into coma due to the hypergamy drive no longer being needed

I just re-read my comments above and realized that I left out the crucial piece tying it together with the topic of conversation (on women keeping their traded-up traded-down relationships a secret).

Does anyone really think that in real-life Kate is going to describe the circumstances of their meeting in language that resembles the truth in a way others can understand?

Suzy: I met Ralph at a birthday party for a friend. He was hanging out with some floozy girl, and I just had to save him from that huge mistake!

Jane: I met John in my English Lit. class. He was shy at first, but so cute, and when he explained this poem I was just like, “Wow!”

Kate: I met Mark in the comments sections of Manosphere websites (It’s this place where men talk about how feminism is bad, and where guys tell each other their bad experiences with women, and how to pick-up chicks to get laid.), Anyways, I was one of the one women per one hundred men. I really loved how he’d go off on how evil women are and how love is phony and how it’s so not worth it to better yourself because all women are gold-diggin whores. Then, all the other guys would totally agree with him. So I decided to marry him.

Everyone: Dumbstruck silence as they watch her social stock crater.

No, she won’t say that. That would be the moment that her personal narrative jumps the shark. She’ll keep it secret to stave it off as long as possible. Instead she’ll innocuously say she “met him online”. He won’t be unemployed; he’ll be “finding himself”, and “in-between careers”. He won’t be a two-faced, but “complicated”.

For the record: I don’t really care about them, and I don’t wish them ill. It’s just that they’re such a ready and perfect example of what we’re talking about. Woman frivolously divorces; becomes single mother. Finds New Man. New man is not so great: a known liar, railer, and a betrayer of men who usurps the father’s place (implicitly, if not explicitly) and has significantly worse economic and social capabilities. For further proof that he’s no catch: He resorts to marrying single mothers. She’s her own source of disrespect. Awkward!, as the kids say.

So: Yes they often divorce and find an “alpha”. No, the alphas are not a trade-up. Yes, they keep it secret to hide these facts from others and themselves.

Y’all are messing up on women and status, that guy who installs enough cabinets to cover his car payment and little else is defying social conventions and has his own sort of status.

Exactly. If he is a man-toy AND can “work with his hands”, and better yet, claims some obscure hobby, then he is broke and has huge status.

I have been popping in and out quickly here so maybe Im missing something. Need to trace the idea upthread to origin. Because I cannot imagine that it is being insisted that a woman will not move down in classical status markers (wealth and power) for tingle status markers.

The question of when and how people meet is an interesting one and produces less than honest answers from both men and women.

I have a friend who when I suggested as I assumed that he had met his wife on-line became offended [pray why?] and explained some nonsense about having gone out to Latin-I-stan and met her there. None of my other friends believe a word of it either and the odd comment from my friend suggests he is being, shall we say, highly economical with the truth. To admit the truth would be perhaps the relationship equivalent of admitting that ones sexual needs are outsourced to Prostitutes.

Another friend of mine who married a woman whom he met online (beating off quite a lot of other competition) claims to family that he met her in a European country he happens to visit occasionally . Complete nonsense of course.

I had a conversation with the girlfriend of another friend who asserted that her female friend well into her forties met her North African partner whilst vacationing in France. I laughed at this obvious delusion perpetrated on my friend’s gullible girlfriend. There may be Arabs in Paris but the most likely event is that he was a part-time North African gigolo in Algiers when they met. He by the way is a fish out of water in England and of course twenty or more years younger than his partner.

It seems, therefore, that women falsify these things too, though I wonder whether you are right about Kate. To have snatched a guy on-line and a guy whose writing tell the very opposite of what he did is surely a feather in her cap. Marrying an avowed MgTow MRA when you are a single mum. Sheeeesh!

Life is of full of little lies (and we have no less an authority than Augustine – contra Kant – that this is not necessarily a bad thing). I had a work colleague I was friendly with and I attended his wedding. One would not call him handsome and I always felt that his bride was hardly more than a 3, yet at the wedding reception, I cringed, at the best man’s speech as he intoned how when my colleague first saw her he was instantly enamoured because she was a ‘looker’. The truth is they were both old money UMC and were a natural match – a good match at that – they have done very well together but the idea that it was Brad Pitt and Jen catching each others gaze across a crowded dance-floor was tosh. His ex was a right little slut but she failed to pass muster because she was trailer trashy.

There is clearly a stigma about dating agencies for what they say is that you were undesirable in your neighbourhood so there is always this sense that one was desperate, and desperation unlike money does have a smell. I must say I have never indulged – always met people in bars, on the street, but easiest of all (of course) at work.

Social status of the husband is blue pill civil society carry over. The only status women need from him is the status I have a man and you don’t. The passing conversation women have about the adorable what ever they have and lead in their home is a social marker for women to feel empowered. It is easier to confidently lead a lesser man. Also a woman’s sexual arousal or gina tingle is as much influenced by the herd as anything else. What men find attractive is pretty much fixed and universal. Our (beta males only) natural sense of honor and loyalty allows us to love and still find attractive an aging wife that has built that submission over the years and stuck it out during the hard times. Women on the other hand follow social trends from hair styles to clothing to types of men. With feminism and by law hypergamy women choose gina tingle and that is a moving target. First marriage may be to a beta type or she with choose to get her own money and fuck alpha type tingles. Hypergamy driven gina tingles is what feminism is and the laws of misandry are trying to achieve. Full liberation and equality for women is achieved when hypergamy driven gina tingle is based purely (true to yourself) gina tingle and no other real world factors.(toasted ice) This is pure madness and is where the destruction of a civilization comes from. Most importantly it never ends it is kept in check or controlled in such a way that drive is conducive to building and maintaining a production civil society ( but you can bet your ass no woman will ever take any action which only purpose is to build a civil society never had and never will) The Bible and the US constitution basically written from Genesis in the Bible had it covered. (Feminist called it the oppressive patriarchy) As another stroking for TFH the Bible reading founding fathers of the US did write into the founding women will not vote. Those fellas must have been Christian men with “game” red pill and all.

Exactly. If he is a man-toy AND can “work with his hands”, and better yet, claims some obscure hobby, then he is broke and has huge status.

This sort of status has an imprinted expiration date: “Good until one year after marriage.”

@Opus

Great comment!

To have snatched a guy on-line and a guy whose writing tell the very opposite of what he did is surely a feather in her cap. Marrying an avowed MgTow MRA when you are a single mum. Sheeeesh!

Only among the MTGOW-MRA nerd herd; the same folks who would have liked the writings of a fellow like Minter to begin with. In the real world nobody knows what those hyphenated acronyms mean. The cap feather effect will fail for the reason complicated jokes fail: Because if you have to explain it the punchline is dead. Since she’ll have to explain it to everyone, the feather disappears in a puff of exposition.

A single mother who boasts about snagging an underemployed MTGOW-MRA is like a Comic-Con groupie bragging about her underemployed WoW Champion husband: No one outside that world can see anyone but giant dorks. The joke doesn’t translate. The same thing happens in Empath’s case of” “If he is a man-toy AND can “work with his hands”, and better yet, claims some obscure hobby, then he is broke and has huge status.” Long-term the narrative breaks down; the story has to start being explained, and everyone loses the punchline.

Status is a limited biochemical marker, women use status as a social signalling mechanism

Just like hypergamy, the social status of a man is used as an attractant, social status & hypergamy are only used to attract women, as hypergamy & social status wears off after awhile for a woman

Social status & money only attracts a woman, theyre tools for socially signalling high value

Its dominance & your masculine ability to discipline & control a woman, which keeps a woman in a relationship

Social status & hypergamy are poor biochemical markers for bonding, as they have no biological feedback response, other then social signalling, making social status & hypergamy good for attracting chicks

But no good for keeping a woman in a relationship

As the effects of hypergamy & social status wears off, after a while for a woman

ie. if Brad Pitt was an AFC, or a chump, he might be able to attract tons of women, but no chance keeping a woman monogamous

Even gold diggers, with a heightened sense of hypergamy would cheat on his pussy whipped ass …

Y’all are messing up on women and status, that guy who installs enough cabinets to cover his car payment and little else is defying social conventions and has his own sort of status.

Exactly. If he is a man-toy AND can “work with his hands”, and better yet, claims some obscure hobby, then he is broke and has huge status.

I have been popping in and out quickly here so maybe Im missing something. Need to trace the idea upthread to origin. Because I cannot imagine that it is being insisted that a woman will not move down in classical status markers (wealth and power) for tingle status markers.

I think we are talking about two different kinds of status. The man’s status from a game perspective is different than the status a woman receives from marrying and remaining married to the man. The cabinet installer has a good amount of the former but almost none of the latter.

Keeping a woman monogamous, has nothing to do with status or hypergamy

If a man is unable to stand the pussification effects of a woman, she’ll go find someone who can

Status’s only used for show as competition between other women

It’s the alpha traits which keeps a woman monogamous & interested in a relationship,

The social status is simply a triggering mechanism to mate, you can easily move from attraction to sex if you trigger a womans need for social dominance hard enough, good luck trying to form a formative relationship long term, with just status & flash & bling

The thing is society is structured to spew out mangina’s, as all families are run by women, as the father is forced to work away from home for 7 days a week

Its the mothers who’re damaging the men, so they have no alpha strong masculine traits

Basically men are finding they’re able to attract women, because of their status, because their mothers have damaged the men, they have no strong alpha masculine traits to trigger the biochemistry in a woman to bond with them …

This also works for women, as they have no father to be submissive to, women today dont know how to trigger the biochemistry in a man to bond with them

Social status of the husband is blue pill civil society carry over. The only status women need from him is the status I have a man and you don’t.

I disagree. There is something to the “I have a man and you don’t” part, but the social status women receive via marriage isn’t merely a social construct. The most obvious way to see this is the benefit to the children. Sex is after all about children from a biological perspective. Kate Middleton’s newborn son has a very real advantage in life, and her choice of a husband has everything to do with this*. There will be a difference in how women approach this based on their own class (or aspired class), but this doesn’t mean there is nothing real here.

*Edit: Compare this with a woman who might have a bastard child via a royal father. The status of this is much lower, even though there will still be some benefit to even being the bastard child of royalty (at least in our present society). Being the mistress of royalty is entirely different than being the wife of royalty. The mistress still gets the tingle, but she doesn’t get the bragging rights among women. For another similar example, consider the social status Monica Lewinsky received from Bill Clinton vs the social status Hillary receives.

UMC white women put a higher weight on status than other women(must keep up appearances). The hamster’s presence makes any form of logical discussion illogical when seeking a base line to judge what any woman is seeking with her hypergamy driven journey to happiness. The whole premise is based on an old blue pill culture that doesn’t exist any more. Feminism has removed male status as a social marker for women. The only status a male gives a women is “I got a man” and his gina tingle quotient. Kate went and flipped the alpha Chick crack there. (She is in the MRA men’s blog herd) no need for logic fellas just see how wet those panties get.

The whole premise is based on an old blue pill culture that doesn’t exist any more. Feminism has removed male status as a social marker for women.

Feminism wants to do this, and it has tried to do this, but it hasn’t, and it can’t. The reason it can’t is the benefit to the child is real. I used an extreme example above, but do you doubt that your own children benefit from the fact that you are in the home? Compare their likely life outcomes with their peers at school whose mother never married or kicked dad out of the house. The difference is huge.

Think about why women compete for status among women. The obvious biological reason is reproductive. That Prada handbag doesn’t give her kids an advantage, but striving to get that Prada handbag tends to result in the kind of situation which will give her children an advantage in life, at least for the vast majority of human history. We can see the misfire of this instinct with women choosing to remain childless so they can work and buy the Prada handbag. But for nearly all of time the way women could get the Prada bag was to marry well and ride hubby* to advance. A more obvious type of related competition among women is the competition to get their kids into the best schools, etc. Again we see differences in how this plays out by social class, but the basic mechanism is there. Your wife gets social status in her circle by having a husband, especially a husband who has a job and solid job skills.

Dalrock
You are right on that. Reality is the truth and how it works. Women don’t necessarily make those decisions based on reality but it does have non feminist type influence that laws of misandry and cultural pressure is trying to remove.
We are in agreement on reality I was more into the actual choices women are making and reasoning why. Too many women as driven by the culture don’t have an understanding of what you described. The upper crust do , educated, wealthy etc. the rest don’t and are not even encouraged to care with the slut walks and everything else.

We are in agreement on reality I was more into the actual choices women are making and reasoning why. Too many women as driven by the culture don’t have an understanding of what you described. The upper crust do , educated, wealthy etc. the rest don’t and are not even encouraged to care with the slut walks and everything else.

The culture and the law is certainly doing everything it can to send women in the wrong direction. But this actually proves that women are influenced by the status of marriage. The questions to ask are:

1) Why do so many women still marry, even though legally the right to the father’s wealth (at a fundamental level) no longer requires marriage?
2) Why do so many women still remain married, despite the constant marketing to divorce and the legal offer of cash and prizes?

I think I’ll make this question Part I of the post I write based on Opus’ request above, and part II will address his specific question.

@Dalrock
Maybe part of the ‘confusion’ is that women’s “status markers” relative to other women, can change over time. This OP is about younger to middle-aged women who are married, and how feminists looking at those marriages don’t like male leadership.

By comparison, I was reminded of a link to the AARP study of later-life divorce that you then discussed in a series of posts in July 2011 (“Boring Loyal Dudes”, “How common Is Late Life Divorce”…). You noted that while the media was promoting divorce ‘excitement’ for women, the reality wasn’t nearly so positive for them. But are women still viewing divorce promotion as part of their “status marker” consideration as they get older, or unhaaaappy in those marriages?

I think we are talking about two different kinds of status. The man’s status from a game perspective is different than the status a woman receives from marrying and remaining married to the man. The cabinet installer has a good amount of the former but almost none of the latter.

Yes, we are. But, these women are short term thinkers, so the resultant behavior over the long term is a series of short term decisions end to end, hence, she has either an unhaaaapy (ultimately) LTR/marriage to the cabinet guy, or a series of handymen and pool boys

Maybe part of the ‘confusion’ is that women’s “status markers” relative to other women, can change over time. This OP is about younger to middle-aged women who are married, and how feminists looking at those marriages don’t like male leadership.

Exactly. There are two questions here, which I’ll (probably) break out into two separate posts. One question is on the status women receive via marriage (getting and staying). The other question is how this changes over time for the woman, as she ages and as she has children, multiple marriages, etc. Opus’ original question (as I understood it) is the latter, but to address that I will need to address the first question as well.

Edit:

By comparison, I was reminded of a link to the AARP study of later-life divorce that you then discussed in a series of posts in July 2011 (“Boring Loyal Dudes”, “How common Is Late Life Divorce”…). You noted that while the media was promoting divorce ‘excitement’ for women, the reality wasn’t nearly so positive for them. But are women still viewing divorce promotion as part of their “status marker” consideration as they get older, or unhaaaappy in those marriages?

Yes, they are clearly motivated by that consideration as they get older. Despite the relentless misdirection from the media, women with the choice to remain married or divorce and collect cash and prizes choose marriage far more often as they get older.

Women that are married to mechanics or carpenters Have nice houses and cars at a much lower price. Worth more than the money to buy the technical skill if you didn’t have that skill.

Probably even more important, their children grow up with a work ethic and sense of earned self confidence which the children of single mothers or layabout fathers don’t get. Put both children at the same job interview and which one gets the job? Not to mention which one keeps the job.

You have misunderstood my point entirely. I’m pointing out that status doesn’t come from getting buthexed and Bernankified by Tucker Max (who rhymes with Goldman Sachs). Women will get status if they channel the tingle as instructed in the ultimate Great Book For Men (and Women), in 1 Cor 7.

You are ignorant if you believe a 38 year old women (with or without kids) has the OPTION of leaving her Beta-ish husband and “go back to the Alphas” at 38 years of age.

Actually, quite a few people on this board have openly admitted that the scenario I have described (that I have seen repeated over and over) are similar to the scenarios they have seen themselves.

I agree with 95% of what Dalrock says. The 5% where I disagree is his harping on the “status” marriage gives women. No, I would say that women don’t keep score based on whether or not they ARE married. They do keep score (with each other), but I would say they keep score based on what they can get OUT of the marriage (in this case, the cash and prizes.) So the women who marry a successful beta and have the beta’s children, they don’t really want to f@ck that old wrinkly body anymore, they are most likely to exit that marriage and take the beta’s money with them and live with their alpha boy friends especailly if they never really loved the beta. And I see this case re-occuring more and more. YMMV.

The Status/value of the male that a woman has a relationship with does matter with regards to her own status. The higher the value the male, the greater her status. But this is not the only thing driving female behavior. And what I am arguing is that it isn’t the most powerful thing driving female behavior. This is why women will do seemingly short-sighted things.

We know that what women look for in men changes based on where the woman is in her monthly cycle. With this piece of knowledge, and everything else that has accumulated in the manosphere, it is important that we keep in mind the irrationality which is the hallmark of most human behavior, especially female behavior.

Yes, he is “between careers” or “complicated”. He also, when she must explain to the herd, “just gets it” or “the chemistry is amazing” or “he is so good with his hands” or “he is so good with the kids” or any variation of these… and if these aren’t convincing the herd, whatever bald-faced lies are necessary will promptly follow: “he gets an inheritance at age whatever” or “he is going back to school to get his masters” or “he is a genius at _____” Additionally, if these aren’t getting enough traction, she will talk about how the other guy cheated on her so much, and hit her, and treated poor little innocent victim hamster so badly, whereas the New Guy treats her so very wonderfully and gives her foot massages etc etc

Loss of status only happens from trading down when she is too stupid to sell one of these fallacies, or he is too oafish to make anyone believe a single good thing about him. It happens, but most often, hamsters prevail, unicorn land persists, and every trade is a trade up.

How often it is that those who shout loudest in support of a position are the very ones to then do the very opposite of what they have previously espoused. In like manner the Political activist reversing his allegiance, and dare I say it the Religious enthusiast too (though for the latter one has some sympathy for it is all too easy to raise the bar just that little bit too high as one aspires towards that which one, deep-down knows, one cannot quite aspire to – like say Ted Haggard – although that is perhaps not quite the same thing). I yearly await the announcement that Richard Dawkins has been accepted into The Roman Catholic Church – it surely cannot long be delayed given that he has now publicly confessed his full acceptance of the historical Jesus.

donalgraeme, Solomon
what you described is the madness that comes from feminist misandry guided hypergamy further influenced by all manor of herd status markers monitored and organized by a hamster that can make any thing the truth. (“are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?”) See where terms like hysterical come from. Toasted ice etc. Putting that shit into law gets you what you have today. What Dalrock is describing is the natural female tendency that a responsible leader will incorporate into a thriving civil society. The other shit must be kept in check for it is pure madness.
Ton
This topic makes you want to go to the mall with the stroller of grand child and go to the food court and talk about relationships with the SAHM’s huh? ha ha ha ha

hey Dalrock i should have said that the churchainsz churchiansz commenters here oft ignore chirstian teahcingsz as i dont’ think that you ignore them, but rather you articulately and intellectually embody christian principlesz lzzolzozzo

Try not to apply too much male logic. Also we need to understand we are talking about natural tendencies as it relates to reality. What women are doing under feminist guidance is blue pill lie that is a reality we can see but it is still a lie. There are lots of people living the lie and the laws are in place for the lie to appear the truth. But it is still a lie. The low birth rate and delayed marriage that Rmax describes is what trying to live a lie looks like. A whole system of misandry including emasculation of the church and now the military was but into place to accommodate the lie. Churchians are just good Christians living a lie. Blue pill living the lie.

I heard on the news this morning that a school district in Southern California will be allowing children from grade levels K-12 to be able to choose which gender bathroom and locker room they want to utilize based on the gender they opt to be.

Our culture further slides down into the abyss. Any ideas how to stop this??

What’s missing from the recent discussion is an idea thrown around on marriage sites called “the fog.”

A woman having an affair becomes so caught up in the excitement of it, that she can’t see the negatives. It’s like a fog descends and covers the potential problems, so all she sees is the positives of leaving her husband for cabinet-hanger-guy.

Conversely, she can’t see the positives of staying with her husband, because the fog covers all the positives. All she can see is the negatives of staying with her husband.

I don’t think this is the same as the rationalization hamster, this is more of a willful blindness to facts.

Are you trying to say theres a 3rd social status, future status of the children, which cause women to get married

I’ll keep this short(ish) and expand in a post this weekend, but what I’m saying is that marriage to (or other public expressions of investment from) a worthy man confers important status on women, and this is separate from “tingles”. While Team Woman is a very true phenomenon/force, it is also true that women ruthlessly compete for status with other women. Men tend to overlook or even deny the latter part because it seems in contradiction to the more obvious team woman effect and because women’s intra sex aggression is by its very nature masked for deniability*. I’m also suggesting that the reason having the public investment of a worthy man is so important to the status among women is their intra sexual status competition has at its roots competition to advance and advantage their own offspring. I’ll expand on this in my next post.

*Thus one woman commenting with a seemingly sincere smile to another woman (who perhaps has some dessert on her plate) “Have you lost weight?” will almost always be misunderstood by the men in the room as a sincere complement but understood by the women involved for what it is.

Also the vast majority of women who marry are over 30+ hence infertile

Also the vast majority of marriage’s are childless, marriage’s of concenvenience, not really real marriage

The low child rate of married families, proves women arent marrying to form a family, theyre basically cat ladies, looking for a beta, basically parasites looking to get off the carousel

With sex (and things related to sex) the fundamental drives tend to come down to children even when children are for all practical purposes off the table. A woman who has her tubes tied is still going to be subject to the tingle, and the tingle is an imperfect divining rod for quality sperm. Likewise a man with a vasectomy is still going to be attracted to young women with all of the hallmarks of health, fertility, and good genes.

Also the vast majority of women who marry are over 30+ hence infertile

uuuhhhhhhhh…. vast majority?

change of life for women is very late 40s to early 50s. unless a medical doctor got in there and cut/tied-up the plumbing, if all other things are operating normally, she’s fertile at 30, 35, 40, even 45….

I also think that “vast majority” comment was way over stated. Women are not infertile in their 30’s. Precipitous decline in egg production, but still 10’s of thousands of eggs available.

I see a trend of unhelpful exaggeration that seems to be aimed at saying women are good and truly washed up after 30. This has come from the observation that yes, many women wash themselves up by early 30’s. No disputing that behavioral trend. But strictly speaking, from appearance, and now fertility, things are starting to sound star chamber-ish.

Id be interested to know if there is a correlation between two factors and these comments

1. the age of the men saying it the most vehemently
2. Is the man the victim of frivorce and has found that he CAN pull 20 somethings and likes it.

Number 1 is an understandable misconception, and number two is an understandable backlash. Neither, however, buttress our credibility.

Basically hypergamy is driven by the intra-sexual hierarchial competition between women, to provide future status for their children

The status of the male is the determinant of the future status of the child, leading to the use of status as hypergamy, this is why women marry for status, its a progeny based intrasexual mating strategy

Excellent variables in hypergamy

Another thing to factor is the social status gap, the higher the gap, the more deeply she falls in love with a man

A woman who hasnt got low social status value, ie low SMP relative to the high SMP of men, will never be able to bond to her own children, this status gap is the leading factor in infanticide, & abortion,

ie women murder their children if theyre social status is too high, as a woman needs a huge social status gap to bond with her child

For example in times of scarcity women value their children more

In times of social wealth, women view their children as disposable, & cant avoid murdering their own children, as a womans status is too high to allow them to bond to their children

Again the main reason women marry down, ie to alpha’s carpenters plumbers from rich betas, is to lower their social status so they can achieve a low enough social status gap, to allow them to bond to their children & fall in love

Basically rich beta’s through their pedestalisation & supplication, raise a womans social status too high, preventing them from falling in love with a man & bonding with their own children, as women need extreme low levels of social status to bond & fall in love with men

This is WHY women marry down, & divorce rich beta’s to lower their social status, so they can bond & fall in love

Women cant fall in love, if theyre social status isnt EXTREMELY lower then a mans

This is essentially the cindrella effect

The cindrella effect is one the most important biological trigger traits for bonding to a man

Or falling in love, while alpha traits are important, its the social status gap, which causes a woman to fall deeply in love with a man, once this occurs, a man just has to maintain his higher social status over the woman, & she’ll remain bonded to him …

You are way early on the curve to make anything close to a statement like that. And what is the point in making it in the first place?

I was responding to someone who made the utterly ridiculous statement that “if all other things are operating normally, she’s fertile at 30, 35, 40, even 45….. That’s clearly not true. (How many 45 year olds do you know who are having healthy kids? LOL!)

Moreover, between ages 20 and 30, there is a drop from around 90 percent likely to being able to conceive, to around 65 percent. In the world of statistics, this is quite significant.

Whether you like RMAX or like what he said, he does seem to have the data on his side.

I see a trend of unhelpful exaggeration that seems to be aimed at saying women are good and truly washed up after 30. This has come from the observation that yes, many women wash themselves up by early 30′s. No disputing that behavioral trend. But strictly speaking, from appearance, and now fertility, things are starting to sound star chamber-ish.

Women are only washed up if the men who love them, quit loving them.

Men (myself included) are quite simple and easily deluded chumps. If some woman pushes the right buttons, is marginally pleasant, and refrains from whoring around in plain sight, we’ll all go through our our lives with the delusion intact that we are the luckiest dudes on earth.

If you (or anyone) has a woman you like, who treats you decently, and who is “not like all the others” then you shouldn’t worry about what I (or anyone else) says about her.

What amazes me is that so few women seem to be able to manage being pleasant enough to capture one of us bumbling simps, and harnessing us for her lifelong benefit. It seems like an easy road to a good life.

Btw I have pretty tight aloof game, & when I view women with disgust & distaste, they literally swoon in my presence

I’ve also seen shorter men I could literally knock out, use their aloofness to amog me, when they see me as a threat, chicks literally flock to this guy

Btw I’ve tested alot of what you state on your blog infield

I basically use two variations of game

Display prolonged periods of social dominance, to trigger her hypergamy to want to mate, I’ve gotten realtors & estate agents to want to bang, within 30-40 minutes of meeting with them, just by using social dominance, ie cocky & funny, to trigger their biological triggers to want to mate

I use billionaire game, to get a woman to fall in love with me, a variance in future projecting the status of their children

I basically tell them cool stories of yachts & flying in helicopters & expensive penthouses … I’ve lived in several penthouses over the years …. never tell a woman directly you have cash, make them swoon by boasting about tales of how much cash you have

Cue them falling head over heels, within two days of meeting with them …

That is an… interesting set of theories you have expressed. Are they your own mental products, or did you draw them from elsewhere? While I find a lot of it hard to accept, if anything the Red Pill has taught me to keep an open mind on such matters.

Btw regarding the genocide committed by African women is reaching crisis proportions, its sick what these african women are doing …

“In Mississippi, usually ranked the poorest state in the nation, blacks represent about 37 percent of the population, but comprise 75 percent of abortion patients.

“BlackGenocide.com” declared that almost 1,800 black babies are aborted on average every day and that black women have had 16 million abortions since 1973 (when the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationwide).

That figure would represent “almost half of the total black population of about 36 million currently living in the U.S.”

To put that number of deaths in perspective, consider that since 1973, the number of black Americans who have died from heart disease (2.26 million), cancer (1.64 million), accidents (307,723), violent crimes (306,313) and AIDS (203,649) combined do not equal the number of lives lost to abortions.”

“A very vocal, segment of black America is convinced that abortion is a conspiracy to kill off the community, even claiming that abortion clinics are doing the work of the Ku Klux Klan.

Herman Cain, the former Republican presidential candidate, blasted Planned Parenthood for what he claimed is the organization’s desire to exterminate black people.

SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of those facilities (abortion clinics) were built in the black community. In (Planned Parenthood founder) Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word ‘genocide,’ but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born, Cain told CBS’ Face the Nation TV show.”

I was responding to someone who made the utterly ridiculous statement that “if all other things are operating normally, she’s fertile at 30, 35, 40, even 45….. That’s clearly not true. (How many 45 year olds do you know who are having healthy kids? LOL!)

That is a different issue. Women can still have kids at 45. Whether or not they are healthy is another matter altogether.

If I remember the numbers correctly when we had ours….

Woman’s Age at Birth——Chance of Down’s Syndrome
==========================================
35——————————-1 in 520
36——————————-1 in 260
37——————————-1 in 130
38——————————-1 in 65
39——————————-1 in 32
40——————————-1 in 16
41——————————-1 in 8

and then the drop off aren’t nearly so steep… like 1 in 6 and then 1 in 5, etc…

yes women can have children into their late 40 and in some cases, early 50s. I’ve seen it. And no they are not all Down’s Syndrome than God.

The merchant-class had been emboldened and supported by the fact that, in the Americas, stone age vs. gunpowder militaries had permitted traders and farmers to expand in ways un-imaginable back in the European continent. There was no need for a strict military organization which is, optimally, headed by a king and his nobles. So two-hundred years later we are here with a crippled Second Estate and non-existent First, with crumbling social institutions and barbarians (or foreign nationals) at the gate.

It’s not only women’s age that matters. Significant increase in Autism if father is over 35. Source of information: John Hopkins Medical Journal

Women’s fertility may go down as age, but should 50 year old men be fathering babies, unless it’s an unplanned pregnancy — I’d say no — probably 45 would be an absolute cut-off point. I’ve seen several women naturally have surprise oops babies in early 40s, perfectly healthy, beautiful babies. I wonder if statistics take into account if a women in 30s is trying to conceive and has fertility problems or if they purposely are avoiding pregnancy with what BC method.

No women cant give birth in their 40’s or 50’s … jeez what planet are you guys from …

It’s impossible for a woman in her 50’s to give birth, unless she gets artificial IVF, even then its HIGHLY RISKY, you guys dont know jack shit about even basic biology …. morons

Plus theres an epidemic of autistic & dyslexic children in europe & the U.S, precisely because career women are a bunch of idiots, churning out huge amounts of dyslexic, brain dead children, in their 30’s

You write: “1) Why do so many women still marry, even though legally the right to the father’s wealth (at a fundamental level) no longer requires marriage?
2) Why do so many women still remain married, despite the constant marketing to divorce and the legal offer of cash and prizes?”

yes women can have children into their late 40 and in some cases, early 50s. I’ve seen it. And no they are not all Down’s Syndrome than God.

You’ve seen post 50-year old grannies grunting and pushing out newborns? That’s quite the claim. While I’m sure it happens occasionally, I’ll admit to being skeptical about your assertion.

As an aside, do any of you bright people have stats for this? How often does this happen? (I’m not claiming to know… but if I had to guess, I’d speculate it’s less than 1000 grannies giving birth per year, in the entire world, and I’d also guess most of those 50+ women gave birth to stillborn or very disabled kids).

Warning: scientific/biological observation here: overpopulation of humans is a planetary problem. Nature is merciless when it comes to enforcing natural laws and rules. Feminism could be a correction of ‘runaway’ technological progress, which basically results with overpopulation. “Progress is Good”… can we get a vote on that? No! – Progress, like Feminism, is unquestionably ‘Good’ – above critique, question, or vote. You will know your master when you find that or those whom you cannot question or criticize. “Progress is Good” and now so is Feminism. To question these is unacceptable.

.02¢ Feminism could be a reaction to “Progress” and the resulting overpopulation which “Progress” has caused or allowed. The feminine is the gate keeper of sexual reproduction. It’s up to her to correct the overpopulation problems of Humanity and she is now doing so until a balance is obtained with the natural laws and rules.

The laws of nature are such that one will suffer in direct ratio to one’s transgressions – there is no mercy in nature… none whatsoever – only the law – the rules of nature – follow those laws and rules and have regeneration – again and again – challenge those laws and rules and suffer mercilessly. To go against this present day upswing in feminine influence might be to go against the laws and rules of nature, which seek a balance between humans and nature – rules which require human technological “progress” to slow and stop. Natural laws and rules will be abided by or the ‘offender’ will cease to exist.

Maybe feminism is simply a way for humanity to correct it’s overpopulation problems.

“Women are only washed up if the men who love them, quit loving them.”

-When they pass their female expiration date.

“Men (myself included) are quite simple and easily deluded chumps. If some woman pushes the right buttons, is marginally pleasant, and refrains from whoring around in plain sight, we’ll all go through our our lives with the delusion intact that we are the luckiest dudes on earth.”

-True

“If you (or anyone) has a woman you like, who treats you decently, and who is “not like all the others” then you shouldn’t worry about what I (or anyone else) says about her.”

-True. Except if she is really unattractive or overweight.

“What amazes me is that so few women seem to be able to manage being pleasant enough to capture one of us bumbling simps, and harnessing us for her lifelong benefit. It seems like an easy road to a good life.”

-True.

I see girls on my computer I endlessly pine over and dream about marrying who could easily harness guys like me for their and their children’s life long benefit. But they would rather suck some cock for $150.

You’ve seen post 50-year old grannies grunting and pushing out newborns? That’s quite the claim. While I’m sure it happens occasionally, I’ll admit to being skeptical about your assertion.

As an aside, do any of you bright people have stats for this? How often does this happen? (I’m not claiming to know… but if I had to guess, I’d speculate it’s less than 1000 grannies giving birth per year, in the entire world, and I’d also guess most of those 50+ women gave birth to stillborn or very disabled kids).

There is a great deal of hype about women being able to delay fertility. I don’t have the specific stat you are looking for, but I did a post Charts on delayed motherhood which puts this in perspective. See also this post. Per the 2011 Statistical Abstract of The United States (see table), only 2.6% of life births in the US are to women 40 or over. Only 0.2% (7,000) are to women 45 or older. Also, the standard way to measure childlessness is to look at women 40-44 who never had children.

> “While Yahshua did say to forgive, He didn’t say you had to marry her.”

Where did I ever command anyone to marry anyone? Why is this strawman trotted out so much in places like this?

I do believe marriage is proper and the optimal state for a man that is not called to celibacy for the sake of working in the Gospel. I also believe that people can be forgiven of anything, based on what the Scriptures say. I never combined those to say what is claimed. Quit beating the straw man.

Not beating the straw man. Lets get the scripture straight shall we ?
– G_D commanded Hosea to marry a Gomer (adulteress) and bear children.
– Yahshua didnt say marry her – He did imply that marrying a woman who had sexual relations was married and marrying out of divorce was adultery unless hubby committed adultery.
– A man/women may leave a unbeliever but must stay single.

Given the amount of seminary training that pastors receive- how many actually teach what is just mentioned in those above points?
Can you point to any lectures or pastors that actually teach that ? If so, I would really like to hear it.

That my fellow brother is the problem – there is a incredible amount of lying and dis-information resulting in fornication & adultery among G_Ds people who name “Jesus”
Imo, the traditions that Christians hold near and dear are no different in error than that of the Talmud thus nullifying the sacred scriptures.

At some point…. perhaps thousands of years from now (who knows) there has to be a correction from nature against humankind in many areas. An Elliot wave theory retraction of sorts.

Science and medicine can only go so far to cure bacteria and slow viruses which evolve into more advanced forms in reaction to treatment.

For instance HIV AIDS – which is a MORAL DISEASE – can be treated with a huge “cocktail” of expensive retro viral drugs (usually at the taxpayers expense) to slow the inevitable. Early cases prove a person would normally die a long slow painful death 4-10 years after acquiring HIV without treatment.

Today science is successfully fighting nature. HIV AIDS “victims” are living 20+ years (i.e. Magic Johnson). At some point the HIV AIDS virus will evolve just like antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have.

No matter how advanced science and medicine become natures law always wins in the end. I’ve always believed in quarantine. If homosexuals had been quarantined in the early 1980’s HIV AIDS as we know it today wouldn’t exist. But that would be “discrimination”.

@Brad as you mentioned “Sin can and is forgiven”. Yes and no….
Initial salvation is very much a “come as you are party”. After that there are plenty of scriptures that show salvation/deliverance is conditional upon ones response /interaction (One reaps exactly what they sow and “accepting Jesus” doesnt change the that law )
Under the law of Moses there was forgiveness under 2 conditions – “unintentional sin” and “caught off guard sin” hence the cities of refuge.
It is the exactly same under the New Covenant.
The writer of Hebrews in Heb 10:26-27specifically pointed this out – there is no sacrifice for deliberate sin. G_D will work with a person endlessly who is serious about “putting to death the deeds of the body”
As mentioned, I have yet to see/hear ANY pastor / leader cover the scriptures regarding marriage between divorced people.
In addition, it takes exceptional testicular fortitude to teach abstinence in reference to Pauls writings (ie fornicators will not enter the Kingdom) of which I have heard very very few pastors teach for fear of their assembly and none ask couples living/sleeping together to not attend till they get married.
If I am mistaken regarding these mentioned points – please accept apology in advance.
But I dont see/hear American pastors who have the guts to actually teach what is written.

Dalrock’s statistics show that only 2 children per thousand are born to women aged 45 and over. Even with IVF treatments, any woman over 45 hoping to have a child is hoping largely against hope. The fact that I hear so many stories about women I know in that age group and childless undertaking IVF treatment shows how difficult it must be at that age to produce any child, never mind a healthy one. I cannot however forbear to mention – and this of course was long before IVF treatment was invented – that although Great Grandfather Opus was born in the year 1848 his mother was born in the year 1797. I cannot see how the records can be mistaken. Even so…

Whether you like RMAX or like what he said, he does seem to have the data on his side.

No, the data is on YOUR side with what YOU said. He expressed absolutes, which a fraction in the sphere seem unable to avoid doing. I would never argue that fertility does not decline with age. i would not argue the general trend in abortion or child killing linkage to welfare (or even race)…though I would agree because it is data supported in a general sense. Stating someone MUST murder their baby is a silly statement. And refuting it as I am is not the cousin to NAWALT, NAWWMKTB (not all welfare women must kill their babies). There are some generalities that deserve expression as absolutes. That’s not one of them.

On fertility, your point IS supported by that data, your refutation of whoever said 35, 40, 45, 50 or whatever is clear in the data. Rmax made another absolute statement, women are infertile over 30. Absurd and not well served by making a trend an absolute at a point in time unless he states the exact point on the line. Come on man, you know all this.

My wife gave birth, 2 months before 40, healthy baby girl who will be 8 in Sept. She had one in early 30’s also. and 2 in late 20’s. That is not really relevant but it is related. The trends are clear. It drops precipitously in the 30’s. i saw a chart this week and forgot where with the number of eggs dropping from million in the 20s to 10’s of thousands in the 30s, and so forth.

The health of the child is a valid concern with data to back as well. But I will say that the recent and activist driven trend in autism birth stats is suspect. There is some data scooping happening. There is some definition expanding, and there is a set of population who actually want to mark their kid as having Asberger because it is associated with savants and high intelligence. Those kids often get scooped into the autism numbers. The ads on the radio where a famous athlete speaks of the odds he would win the Superbowl or something then says the odds of having an Autistic kid are 1/100 are driven by this data scooping.

What the data shows is involuntary childless spinsterhood only requires small effort on the part of men. 18-27 is voluntary going to school, career, cock carousel, etc. (some will even get an abortion during this period.) 27-40 is the frivorce years this is when they get there meal tickets and hostages and have it all. 35 and up is when the hysteria starts frivorce will make them spinsters. Men having the red pill and blue pill men with a male birth control pill will seal the fate. A male pill is being manufactured and sold right now in Indonesia. It is not some pie in the sky any more. Spinsterhood is voluntary and involuntary as they age as physical attractiveness wanes more men are less likely to find her attractive. The marriage strike is not attractive men refusing to marry the strike is men not working to be attractive in the first place. Ties in real well with what Dalrock was discussing on the instinctive female desire for high status father for her children. Basically we have a window of about 27-40 where aware men or men with something to lose with a male pill can make something voluntary into something involuntary. with the 80/20 rule in play it will not take many men to cause mass hysteria. (can you imagine how much fun it would be to participate in that and watch it play out in the media over the next few years) 13 year window give or take (we are talking about live humans here) and mother nature takes over from there. This will be when women will vote in artificial wombs and cloning. They are too selfish and will double down on rebellion and men will have the tools to have children with out her. I also think young party bitches will sell eggs to old woman to have children with.
Lets see 13 year window, older and less attractive + more men aware of red pill + male birth control pill + feminism telling her to have a career + pool of attractive men reduced due to frivorce and marriage strike looks like wee can get a huge chunk of fairly wealthy career women in a hysterical state. Can you just see the The Player at a dinner table talking about just meeting the right woman and settling down to have a family with one those women all the while on birth control. That guy would be hitting desperate ass twice a day and at lunch time in the face ,ass ,hands and feet. She will be buying him shit and everything else. ha ha ha ha .

“I also think young party bitches will sell eggs to old woman to have children with.”

Older women have plenty of eggs that are in good shape. The problem is (1) they no longer ovulate, so their body isn’t releasing the eggs; and (2) their body is no longer capable of supporting a healthy pregnancy (hence the high number of health problems for children born of older mothers).

The more likely scenario is that we’ll see young women acting as surrogates (being implanted with the fertilized eggs of older women). The question is how will they make this socially acceptable? I don’t know, but I’m sure they will. Just as stories about poor girls working their way through college as strippers and prostitutes have helped to make those both seem more mainstream, I’m sure we’ll be hearing stories about poor girls working their way thorough college as surrogates.

The other shoe to drop will be a source of semen. If an older single woman is going to go to the trouble (and so far outside of traditional norms) of using a surrogate, why shouldn’t she use the “best quality” semen for what will probably be her only child? I expect an entire industry to spring up that specializes in providing her with just that. And, that semen is likely to come from a small number of men that have a very specific set of traits that women desire.

Where it goes after that could make a good science fiction story. Hmmm, my wife has been pestering me for years to do the November Nanowrimo stuff. Maybe I just found a good basis for a SciFi story.

Now look at these guys. http://www.maydaily.com/2010/12/03/hk-tycoon-flouts-law-to-secure-dynasty/
Damn right there is a marriage strike and as soon as the blue pill wears off maybe we will have more happy fathers. Come to think about it women are helpers to a man. So realisticly children really only need a father and mothers are just nice to haves. (thing of how polite and kind women get when that becomes the norm assumption.) Current state of the west says I’m right.

I’ve noticed it isn’t uncommon for a woman getting divorced to want their ex-husband to still perform many of his “duties as a husband” even though he isn’t married. From cutting the grass to car and house maintenance to helping her balance her checkbook.

And, guys do this in some thinking they will win her back if only they are nice enough to her.

I am going to import some tasty slot C from southAmerica. I am so done with American chicks. They have priced them selves out of the market with there, never happy, always looking for a better deal bull shit. I have a surprise for them? after 45 its over for 90% of the females. I am putting together a video called imotation of the exotics. The site is www. redonkulas.com check it out if you wish

“I also think young party bitches will sell eggs to old woman to have children with.”

Older women have plenty of eggs that are in good shape. The problem is (1) they no longer ovulate, so their body isn’t releasing the eggs; and (2) their body is no longer capable of supporting a healthy pregnancy (hence the high number of health problems for children born of older mothers).

The more likely scenario is that we’ll see young women acting as surrogates (being implanted with the fertilized eggs of older women).”

I think YOU have it wrong, J. Older women’s ova are a rotten mess, even more so than are their uteri. The high and climbing miscarriage rates for the 40+ crowd are disproportionately due to embryos metabolically imploding due to lethally bad genetics, more so than due to their uteri not working at least passably most of the time. More than a few careerist celebrity women in their early forties have carried pregnancies to term using younger women’s donated (sold) ova. The reverse is rare at best, for good scientific reason.
(My wife and I have 13-month old fraternal twins that were from both donated ova AND gestated by a surrogate, aged 23 in both cases, so we’ve done more than a bit of personal research into this subject.)

“Dalrock’s statistics show that only 2 children per thousand are born to women aged 45 and over. Even with IVF treatments, any woman over 45 hoping to have a child is hoping largely against hope. The fact that I hear so many stories about women I know in that age group and childless undertaking IVF treatment shows how difficult it must be at that age to produce any child, never mind a healthy one. I cannot however forbear to mention – and this of course was long before IVF treatment was invented – that although Great Grandfather Opus was born in the year 1848 his mother was born in the year 1797. I cannot see how the records can be mistaken. Even so…”

Easily explained. GGfather Opus’s mother’s daughter or niece had a bastard, which she raised as her own. Common enough in human history before the 1970s. Remember how Sarah Palin was accused of having done this?

My husband asked me to read from your web site because he believes my thinking is wrong…I just finished reading this article and have a question that requires some background before I pose it. I grew up in a very conservative Christian church. I firmly believe that the Bible is the inerrant (not wrong anywhere) word of God from cover to cover. I firmly believe the passages that talk about a husband loving his wife and the wife submitting to her husband. I also believe the passage you mentioned that a woman should be silent in the church. <>

The challenge – I believe that my husband is extremely critical in the face of mistakes and misunderstandings…I also believe that it is to the point of being emotionally abusive. I continue to pray “God please keep my focus on you.” when I feel hurt by the condescension that he argues I deserve for having thought that Y was an even remotely sensible way to do something. another example – In trying to submit to him, if I am not sure what he would want me to do in a situation, I call him and ask him what he wants me to do (and then I do what he said). If I can’t get ahold of him but must still make some sort of a choice, I pray for wisdom and do my best to figure out what my husband would want me to do. If he doesn’t think he would have made that same choice, he is often angry and scornful because he doesn’t understand how anyone would think that way and come to the conclusion I had reached when trying to make the decision). He also believes that his criticisms are Biblical because that’s his way of washing me with water as the Word (he also remembers some past conflicts very differently from the way I remember them – he is certain, remembering back, that I was disrespectful in situations where I really believe that I *was* genuinely trying to honor him but misunderstood what he had wanted me to do.)

It hurts when he is so critical, but I still try to honor and obey him in everything. Part of *why* I pray so much for God to keep my focus on Him is that if my husband senses that I am discouraged, he gets even more irritable with me. Since he is certain he has not done anything wrong, he believes that my being upset at all is taking away from his environment and so he increases his anger/resentment toward me in response. I can’t afford to feel hurt or it ends up costing me more, so I spend a lot of time praying in order to be ok in the midst of what feels very critical and abusive to me.

He also thinks I over-react to the fact that he has for all but possibly the first year of our marriage had the habit of using pornography when he is angry with me. Because he lies about it (and I have never been able to detect when he is lying), the only times I have ever found out about it are when I have discovered the evidence. This has happened numerous times – but he has reminded me that it is “only in his heart” so it isn’t as serious as I make it out to be. At one point, he did promise to get help, but then later he said there’s no one out there he agrees has any sound Biblical basis for their teaching on the subject so there wasn’t any help he felt was worth pursuing.

He spends a lot of time reading materials such as the above article and he feels strongly that they justify his conviction that he is in the right and I am in the wrong – he adamantly believes that I am the cause of all the conflicts/arguments/disagreements in our marriage.

What seems missing in your above material (you do mention it in one sentence at the end in passing only) is how to know whether someone really IS abusive and really IS using the Bible to their advantage in order to justify their abuse.

I have prayed to try to understand his perspective (again I firmly believe God has put the leadership of the home in the hands of the husband -that he really is head of household and I do believe I am prayerfully evaluating what I do/say in order to be consistent with that). We’ve been to Christian counselors a few different times, but my husband has said they’ve always ended up just making things worse.

So, outside of God deciding to intervene and make the truth clear to whichever one of the two of us is believe a lie, how are we supposed to know whether someone really is abusive? There seem to be plenty of materials out there that you feel distort the Bible in order to pursue feministic goals. Are there any materials out there that you believe paint a true Biblical picture of what *is* emotional abuse?

somehow, the first example I had included in my post got deleted – that first example was to say that I had been disappointed when some time back a woman in our old church had cut in during the singing time during a church service in order to speak in tongues and then had gone on to translate what she had said (it basically was a mini-sermon). I felt that her speaking out in such a way was unBiblical because of the passage you cited as well as another that specifically talks about tongues and prophesying.

Also, it looks like somehow I managed to “bold” a good chunk oof the post – not sure how that happened, but it isn’t supposed to be bolded.